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

Whoooooa, that writer is at least as big a fruitcake as you two.

0 Replies

You talking about the writer of things about the history of the people starting the ACLU? Be our guest. Go research it yourself, then come back here and dispute it with evidence if you feel you have any.

0 Replies

The writer is a fruitcake, JTT? Well, if you can show where he lied then he might be a fruitcake, but I am very much afraid that if that is all you can say, you are dead in the water!!

When a statement is made with which you disagree, you must rebut it with evidence. If you cannot, it STANDS!

If you don't understand that, go back to play in the sandbox!!!

0 Replies

Okie-You cannot intimidate Blatham-

Look at his avatar-

A picture of steely-eyed rectitude--uncorruptable--firm in his righteousness--sure of his moral superiority.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You talking about the writer of things about the history of the people starting the ACLU? Be our guest. Go research it yourself, then come back here and dispute it with evidence if you feel you have any.

The problem here is one of logic. You are guilty of a fallacy of relevance, the most common logical error. A first year course in Logic will fill you in on this (you can do many by correspondence). But, just possibly, you don't need to learn this subject either.

As was pointed out to you earlier, American neoconservatism and the modern conservative movement also has ex-Troskyites and Marxist socialists as key figures - Irving Kristol and Bill's mommy, Gertrude Himmelfarb along with David Horowitz, for example.

0 Replies

Bernie said: "The ACLU's holy war against the Boy Scouts, the LA County Official Seal (containing a tiny Cross), holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas -- and even the Constitution itself -- has unmasked the ACLU as a tyrant less interested in civil rights than imposing judicial restraints that amount to suppression of majority rights by a tiny minority."

Don't you realize that the Bill of Rights is all about protecting the minority against the oppression of the majority and the state. For instance, in the school-prayer case, one woman, exercising her first amendment rights, was successful over the massive power of the state and the majority.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Bernie said: "The ACLU's holy war against the Boy Scouts, the LA County Official Seal (containing a tiny Cross), holidays like Thanksgiving and Christmas -- and even the Constitution itself -- has unmasked the ACLU as a tyrant less interested in civil rights than imposing judicial restraints that amount to suppression of majority rights by a tiny minority."

Don't you realize that the Bill of Rights is all about protecting the minority against the oppression of the majority and the state. For instance, in the school-prayer case, one woman, exercising her first amendment rights, was successful over the massive power of the state and the majority.

Tell us then why the ACLU wants a city at least 300 years old to change its name.
They are trying to force the city of Las Cruces (the crosses)NM to change its name and its official seal because it has 3 crosses in it.
Doesnt the ACLU have more important things to do?
Whats next?
Are they gonna try and force all of the cities that have the word "saint" in their names to change the city name?

0 Replies

MM, I think you need to go back to the drawing board. The ACLU wants the city to change its logo, not its name. Big difference!

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

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

MM, I think you need to go back to the drawing board. The ACLU wants the city to change its logo, not its name. Big difference!

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

You are correct,my mistake.

But the question still stands.

Why do they want the city to change its logo?
That logo has been used for over 100 years.
Why is it so bad?
It does represent the name of the city,and the only people complaining are the ACLU.

I think the ACLU goes around looking for fights.

0 Replies

MM, doesn't principle mean anything to you? The logo is religious, and the constitution mandates a separation between church and state. Slavery lasted hundreds of years, which didn't make it acceptable.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

MM, doesn't principle mean anything to you? The logo is religious, and the constitution mandates a separation between church and state. Slavery lasted hundreds of years, which didn't make it acceptable.

So,any cross on a public building,on public land,on a city seal,or anywhere else that the public might have paid for it has a religious meaning and must be torn down or eliminated because of the mythical separation of church and state.

Is that what you are saying?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

MM, I think you need to go back to the drawing board. The ACLU wants the city to change its logo, not its name. Big difference!

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

It's pointless to disuss these issues with them, Advocate. They have such a superficial, and I mean barely scratching the surface superficiality, knowledge of these issues that you'd have to spend years just bringing them up to speed.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Advocate wrote:
MM, I think you need to go back to the drawing board. The ACLU wants the city to change its logo, not its name. Big difference!

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

It's pointless to disuss these issues with them, Advocate. They have such a superficial, and I mean barely scratching the surface superficiality, knowledge of these issues that you'd have to spend years just bringing them up to speed.

Actually,I probably have as much knowledge about the issue as you do.
I just happen to disagree with the ACLU and with the mythical "separation of church and state".

There is no such assertion anywhere in the Constitution.

The left and many on here have pointed to Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist's,where he mentioned the phrase "wall of separation".

But,many of you seem to ignore the fact that his letter was a reply to a letter they sent him.
If you actually read the letter they sent,and place his letter in context as a response to them,you get an entirely different meaning to what he wrote.

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/baptist.htm

0 Replies

The courts have supported the separation principle in the B of R. But I guess you feel that you have a better grasp of the law than does the courts.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

The courts have supported the separation principle in the B of R. But I guess you feel that you have a better grasp of the law than does the courts.

Where exactly is the "separation principle" in the Bill of Rights?
If you are talking about the first amendment,lets look at it,ok.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Amends

Quote:

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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

Now,where does it say anything about the separation of church and state?

0 Replies

Please MM, for your own sake, leave it alone. A constitutional scholar, you're not.

Reading the constitution and interpreting its meaning in light of present day situations is what the SC has been doing for over 200 years.

And just what is it in your background that would lead us to believe you're qualified to do this?

0 Replies

MM, BTW, what Jefferson said or didn't say in a letter is immaterial relative to interpreting the constitution.

Non-Christians find it repugnant to see crosses, etc., on public buildings. Should Christians insist on this, such as by amending the constitution, non-Christians should be relieved of paying taxes.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

MM, BTW, what Jefferson said or didn't say in a letter is immaterial relative to interpreting the constitution.

Non-Christians find it repugnant to see crosses, etc., on public buildings. Should Christians insist on this, such as by amending the constitution, non-Christians should be relieved of paying taxes.

So,answer my question.

Should ALL crosses or other religious symbols,on any land that might be paid for by US taxpayers,be removed so as not to offend anyone?

Are you also saying that what the man that wrote part of the Constitution,and who served as President,doesnt matter?

Remember,the left likes to use his letter as justification.
Are you now saying it doesnt matter?

0 Replies

Jefferson's letters have no bearing in interpreting the constitution. Is that clear? They would be interesting in an historical sense.

Regarding your other question, I have to know the facts and circumstances.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Jefferson's letters have no bearing in interpreting the constitution. Is that clear? They would be interesting in an historical sense.

Regarding your other question, I have to know the facts and circumstances.

You are the one that said...

Quote:

MM, doesn't principle mean anything to you? The logo is religious, and the constitution mandates a separation between church and state. Slavery lasted hundreds of years, which didn't make it acceptable.

So,does that mean that any and all religious symbols on any taxpayer land or on any land that MIGHT be funded by taxpayers should be removed.

Its a simple yes or no question.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know