Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

okie

Step one first. If your claim (or anyone else's claim) is that the ACLU is inconsistent in forwarding a principle, we first have to establish what principle is in question. The relevant principle regarding your link has to do with religion or religious expression.

Again, what is that principle that the ACLU ought to be forwarding?

0 Replies

The principle is intrusion of government into religion or perhaps in the examples given, vice versa. You asked for an example. I provided one.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The principle is intrusion of government into religion or perhaps in the examples given, vice versa. You asked for an example. I provided one.

I asked you a couple of questions, as you'll recall. The first question/step being your statement of the relevant principle that the ACLU ought to follow (and I agree it ought to follow such consistently).

You do not state a principle here. You merely mention the sphere - government and religion.

Let's get clear on what a principle is normally considered to look like...(from Dictionary.com)

Quote:

- A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
- A basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct

The second one seems quite helpful. For example, take the initial statement in the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." It is an assumption or generalization or 'truth' from which we reason and from which we strive to conduct ourselves (in behavior and in laws) in society.

So, what would be the principle in American political life/thought regarding the relationship between government and religion?

Surely we would agree that the radical Muslim folks have it wrong in their notion that (I'll make up a fairly accurate statement of their principle) "government and law must be directed according to the literal statements found in the Koran, as understood by Muslim religious leaders".

Can we also agree that, in the US, the principle relating to the intersection of government and religion arises out of the experiences your founders had with religious oppression in Europe? Can we agree that they sought, first and foremost, to protect the liberty of every American to believe and worship as they themselves chose to do, regardless of what that belief might be or even whether any belief was held or not? Can we further agree that establishing any particular religious belief as favored by government has a negative consequence on the religious liberty of all others?

0 Replies

An excellent example of religious intrusion in government is Bush's veto of the stem cell research bill. His view that a couple of cells that can't be seen by the human eye is human life that must be protected is certainly motivated by religious belief. He is imposing that belief on the entire country.

0 Replies

...to the determent of American science, but hey, science isn't all that important to you if are trying to bring on Armageddon and the Rapture.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

okie wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I was you who posted that link, asked that question and related it to ACLU.

That is correct, Walter it was me, because I have seen the ACLU apply their principles differently depending on who they like. I will admit I don't know about this case. Lets move on.

Have you? What cases? What is the principle at issue and where have they been inconsistent to a party liked or disliked regarding the principle?

Again Blatham, you asked for cases, and I provided cases or an example of the ACLU being inconsistent.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

An excellent example of religious intrusion in government is Bush's veto of the stem cell research bill. His view that a couple of cells that can't be seen by the human eye is human life that must be protected is certainly motivated by religious belief. He is imposing that belief on the entire country.

Speaking of inconsistency:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204753,00.html

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

...to the determent of American science, but hey, science isn't all that important to you if are trying to bring on Armageddon and the Rapture.

Is this the kind of science you are talking about?

http://www.foxnews.com/column_archive/0,2976,14,00.html

0 Replies

okie wrote:

blatham wrote:
okie wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I was you who posted that link, asked that question and related it to ACLU.

That is correct, Walter it was me, because I have seen the ACLU apply their principles differently depending on who they like. I will admit I don't know about this case. Lets move on.

Have you? What cases? What is the principle at issue and where have they been inconsistent to a party liked or disliked regarding the principle?

Again Blatham, you asked for cases, and I provided cases or an example of the ACLU being inconsistent.

okie

Actually, what you've done is post a screed, not checked the veracity of the details of it, and avoided any address to the principles involved including avoiding even any statement of what that principle might be while claiming it has been violated.

I hoped you would, in the spirit of your founders' values and intellectual rigor, try a little harder to think about these matters. I confess I wasn't confident you'd be able to do that honestly.

You write (and think) in cliches. You do that because you are intellectually lazy. Or perhaps just anxious about looking a fool or revealing yourself as uneducated.

The high irony is how convinced you are that you've grasped the principles underlying the founders' designs for American democracy while being so poorly educated in and conversant with those ideas and values.

0 Replies

Blatham, you want to fog the issue by dragging me off into some tangent. You don't wish to address simple points because you lose, so therefore you attempt to cloud the issue with obscure arguments. I stand by my assertion that the ACLU is not even handed, which is obvious to virtually everybody I know out here, but obviously it escapes liberals as yourself because of the alternate world you apparently inhabit.

Go ahead and believe what you want. From my observation of the ACLU over the last years earns them no respect from me, and frankly I don't know anybody that well that holds them in high regard. Usually, they are the butt of jokes, because they are a joke. Sometimes they are on the right side of an issue, because they may actually get it right sometimes or possibly because the throw in a token case once in a while to appear unbiased, I don't know for sure. Essentially, the ACLU is a rather extreme organization.

0 Replies

"Fog"? Clarification is the precise opposite of that.

If someone claims person A is guilty of manslaughter, then it is not to 'fog' the matter to first clarify what constitutes manslaughter.

If, in a discussion on the benefits of democracy, one party understands that term to mean rule by elected representatives where all citizens are included as potential voters BUT the other party understands democracy to mean rule by a small unelected corporate elite, then such a discussion can have no "winner". It will be a completely worthless waste of everyone's time.

0 Replies

I hate it when someone wants to cloud the issues with facts.

0 Replies

Question: What is the difference between these two statements?

1. "Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles. If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms."
-- ACLU website, http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

2. "Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to all kinds of speech, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on conservative talk-show hosts, speeches against affirmative action, anti-government editorials, or political protests. If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to free speech in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to commit libel, slander, con-artist fraud, defamation, verbal threats, perjury, incitement to riot, and even reciting pornography to children, for they, like newspaper editorials, are speech."

0 Replies

Not much. Unless you hold that either speech liberties or weapons ownership liberties ought to be absolute. Do we know anyone who holds either notion?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

So far, you are zero on answering any portion of the specific questions I put to you. All you have managed is to repeat your belief/claim and to tell us that you are certain about it. "It's obvious that whites are superior" or "there is tons of evidence that conservatives eat babies at satanic rituals!!" or "Where have you been for the last ten years? Everyone knows that Abe Lincoln and Jesus were homosexuals" are claims as deserving of our attention as your claim.

To dredge up your own outlandish statements, blatham, you should be ashamed of yourself, and part of the reason I have minimal interest in debating demagoguery.

But I am still waiting for you to acknowledge the example I gave of the partiality exhibited by the ACLU, which you might remember you asked for. You keep asking for a relevant principle involved. It should be obvious it revolves around "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....."

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Question: What is the difference between these two statements?

1. "Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles. If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms."
-- ACLU website, http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

2. "Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to all kinds of speech, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on conservative talk-show hosts, speeches against affirmative action, anti-government editorials, or political protests. If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to free speech in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to commit libel, slander, con-artist fraud, defamation, verbal threats, perjury, incitement to riot, and even reciting pornography to children, for they, like newspaper editorials, are speech."

Nice job, MM.
Well wrought; thank u.
David

0 Replies

1) By its very wording, the First Amendment does NOT provide an unfettered right to bear arms. It states that the unfettered right only exists in the context of a well regulated militia. Virtually all the courts have so held.

2) There is an unfettered right to free speech. However, after speaking, you may be deemed guilty of something, or liable in a tort action. Certain speech, such as yelling fire ..., has been deemed to be, in reality, an action. This is because there is an immediate result, such as rioting.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

1) By its very wording, the First Amendment does NOT provide an unfettered right to bear arms. It states that the unfettered right only exists in the context of a well regulated militia. Virtually all the courts have so held.

2) There is an unfettered right to free speech. However, after speaking, you may be deemed guilty of something, or liable in a tort action. Certain speech, such as yelling fire ..., has been deemed to be, in reality, an action. This is because there is an immediate result, such as rioting.

Well if you change the "First Amendment" there to "Second Amendment", you'll be right.

The Constitution only says that these things cannot be taken away. It does not say that they may not be regulated in the interest of the greater good. I don't mind, for instance if I am not allowed to take a firearm into a schoolhouse or courthouse or other places where it makes sense to prohbit these. And I have no problem with anybody forbidding firearms on their private property. But to be told that I may not own and keep a firearm on my own property nor use it to protect me and mine? That is a freedom worth fighting for.

0 Replies

Okie wrote:

To dredge up your own outlandish statements, blatham, you should be ashamed of yourself, and part of the reason I have minimal interest in debating demagoguery.

But I am still waiting for you to acknowledge the example I gave of the partiality exhibited by the ACLU, which you might remember you asked for. You keep asking for a relevant principle involved. It should be obvious it revolves around "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ....."

*************************************************************

Do not be surprised at Mr. Blatham's mind set, Okie. Just ask yourself what kind of mind would present itself as a Canadian Mounted Policeman.

0 Replies

FOCUS | Bush Bids for Sweeping Detention Power
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072906X.shtml
US citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill. A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror.

0 Replies

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know