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

SierraSong wrote:

Nat Hentoff (liberal, but mostly fair) doesn't think the ACLU has a clear understanding of the First Amendment. He presents a compelling argument as to why they (and people in general) should educate themselves.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-27-god-talk_x.htm

Thanks for that Sierra. It clearly illustrates the problem I think and how the ACLU doesn't understand the First Amendment sufficiently to properly defend it.

0 Replies

Quote:

I had problems with you saying that she was mentally unstable because she held a particular point of view related to her religious faith.

Except that I didn't say that. Is this the fifth or sixth interration now of me having to correct you here?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

SierraSong wrote:
Nat Hentoff (liberal, but mostly fair) doesn't think the ACLU has a clear understanding of the First Amendment. He presents a compelling argument as to why they (and people in general) should educate themselves.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-27-god-talk_x.htm

Thanks for that Sierra. It clearly illustrates the problem I think and how the ACLU doesn't understand the First Amendment sufficiently to properly defend it.

"Clearly"? I'm hard pressed to imagine how you might have achieved a superior understanding of the constitutional issues here compared to the ACLU, foxfyre. I sure as hell haven't.

Hentoff's personal certainty is no guarantee he's got it right just as an ACLU attorney's certainty is no guarantee he's got it right.

The issues are not simple. Each case has its own nuances and dilemmas. Any viewpoint is valid, given that it is educated and not too ideologically intractable.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I had problems with you saying that she was mentally unstable because she held a particular point of view related to her religious faith.

Except that I didn't say that. Is this the fifth or sixth interration now of me having to correct you here?

Okay, if you didn't say that, what did you say? I've read what you said and this is still how I interpret it. So how is my interpretation wrong?

0 Replies

Please go back and re-read that initial post. You can paste it here if you like.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
SierraSong wrote:
Nat Hentoff (liberal, but mostly fair) doesn't think the ACLU has a clear understanding of the First Amendment. He presents a compelling argument as to why they (and people in general) should educate themselves.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-27-god-talk_x.htm

Thanks for that Sierra. It clearly illustrates the problem I think and how the ACLU doesn't understand the First Amendment sufficiently to properly defend it.

"Clearly"? I'm hard pressed to imagine how you might have achieved a superior understanding of the constitutional issues here compared to the ACLU, foxfyre. I sure as hell haven't.

Hentoff's personal certainty is no guarantee he's got it right just as an ACLU attorney's certainty is no guarantee he's got it right.

The issues are not simple. Each case has its own nuances and dilemmas. Any viewpoint is valid, given that it is educated and not too ideologically intractable.

This entire thread is devoted to the ACLU's selective interpretations of the Bill of Rights, most particularly the First Amendment.

When I say somebody 'got it right', I'm saying that I agree with their opinion or conclusion. And I do not hold opinions that I am not able to defend, or at least I don't put them out there without being able to provide a rationale for them.

When Hentoff says that a historical depiction, even of a religious symbol, is not a violation of the First Amendment or any other point of the Constitution, I agree 100%. And I think the ACLU is dead wrong when they attempt to say otherwise.

I think the ACLU's assault on towns and counties re their religious symbols is reprehensible, Unamerican, and unconstitutional.

So Hentoff is right in my view. And the ACLU is dead wrong.

What Hentoff has said in any other article or his point of view about anything else is immaterial. I was judging what he said in this article to be accurate, correct, and well stated.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Please go back and re-read that initial post. You can paste it here if you like.

I went all the way back to Page 43 and couldn't find anything other than you saying that katherine Harris's remarks suggest instability, a form of pathology, etc. etc. because she suggests people elect Christians to office to avoid 'voting for sin' and she believes God puts rulers in power. The former is an opinion about the values she wants in a candidate and the second is straight from the Bible and is believed by many hundreds of thousands of Christians. Not all Christians. But a lot of Christians.

If you are referring to another post, I couldn't find it so could you kindly locate and post it?

You still have not responded to my question that if Katherine Harris is unstable or demonstrates a form of pathology for her views, then do you consider all the other hundreds of thousands of Christians who believe as she does to also be unstable or demonstrate a form of pathology?

And if you did not say that Katherine Harris is unstable or demonstrates a form of pathology, what did you mean by those words that you used in your posts?

And if you were referring to the initial post in the thread, I think this is the most pertinent and descriptive paragraph re the thesis of that post:

Quote:

Nat Henthoff, a former ACLU board member who is pro-life and a nationally syndicated columnist, told the Times: "For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members -- I can't think of anything more contrary to the reason the ACLU exists."

Ironic that we've just been discussing Henthoff, yes?

0 Replies

Quote:

Nat Henthoff, a former ACLU board member who is pro-life and a nationally syndicated columnist, told the Times: "For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members -- I can't think of anything more contrary to the reason the ACLU exists."

fox

Quote:

Ironic that we've just been discussing Henthoff, yes?

Not terribly. My initial post on this thread (if I recall correctly) argued that the ACLU plan to carry through with such internal speech restrictions was stupid and counter to principle. Of course, they decided against instituting that policy. So it appears you and hentoff and I and the ACLU are in agreement on the issue which began the thread.

0 Replies

Well, that's different anyway. Smile

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

[
"Clearly"? I'm hard pressed to imagine how you might have achieved a superior understanding of the constitutional issues here compared to the ACLU, foxfyre. I sure as hell haven't.

Blatham, anybody can read the constitution, and if they have some degree of common sense, they have the ability to understand the underlying principles involved. Heaven help us when only lawyers are qualified to know what it means. I for one am not ready to cede all constitutional expertise to the ACLU.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

blatham wrote:
[
"Clearly"? I'm hard pressed to imagine how you might have achieved a superior understanding of the constitutional issues here compared to the ACLU, foxfyre. I sure as hell haven't.

Blatham, anybody can read the constitution, and if they have some degree of common sense, they have the ability to understand the underlying principles involved. Heaven help us when only lawyers are qualified to know what it means. I for one am not ready to cede all constitutional expertise to the ACLU.

And not only that, when the ACLU clearly--and I have no qualms about using the word 'clearly'--usurps the very principles that the Constitution protects and does that for fun and profit, I think we can say that Okie or me or just about anybody of normal intelligence who can read is capable of better interpretations of the Constitution than what we've been seeing from the ACLU lately.

Letting the ACLU define what is constitutional would be like letting Abramoff write policies on lobbying ethics. Both know the law but define it to accommodate their own self interests.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

blatham wrote:
[
"Clearly"? I'm hard pressed to imagine how you might have achieved a superior understanding of the constitutional issues here compared to the ACLU, foxfyre. I sure as hell haven't.

Blatham, anybody can read the constitution, and if they have some degree of common sense, they have the ability to understand the underlying principles involved. Heaven help us when only lawyers are qualified to know what it means. I for one am not ready to cede all constitutional expertise to the ACLU.

And several posts back I just said that Hentoff is right to advise citizens to get educated (better educated) re these matters. I don't want or advise you to cede to any authority, your pastor, Bush, Hentoff or the ACLU. Expertise and familiarity are relevant considerations in evaluating the worth of someone's point of view but that doesn't mean you shouldn't approach their opinions with a fundamental measure of scepticism.

0 Replies

One other observation about this. If the ACLU was truly an unbiased group with honest originalist constitutional scholars, that might be different, but the ACLU is not. They clearly have a political agenda, which go clear back to the roots of the organization in terms of the people that founded it. If you doubt it, do a simple web search on the organization's history.

0 Replies

Quote:

I think we can say that Okie or me or just about anybody of normal intelligence who can read is capable of better interpretations of the Constitution than what we've been seeing from the ACLU lately.

That is, in a word, silly. You have neither the legal/constitutional expertise nor a familiarity with the difficult and sophisticated legal reasoning at issue. If the two of you sat down with the SC justices for a conversation/discussion on these matters, how many seconds might it take for the two of you to realize you ought to shut up and listen?

Go ahead and argue your views. But forgo any humility as regards your grasp of issues, and you just set yourself up to learn nothing.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

One other observation about this. If the ACLU was truly an unbiased group with honest originalist constitutional scholars, that might be different, but the ACLU is not. They clearly have a political agenda, which go clear back to the roots of the organization in terms of the people that founded it. If you doubt it, do a simple web search on the organization's history.

You really ought to cease pushing this one, okie. Or be prepared to be consistent and make the further suggestion that american neo-conservatism and all organizations/media outlets begun by David Horowitz are equally commie influenced.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I think we can say that Okie or me or just about anybody of normal intelligence who can read is capable of better interpretations of the Constitution than what we've been seeing from the ACLU lately.

That is, in a word, silly. You have neither the legal/constitutional expertise nor a familiarity with the difficult and sophisticated legal reasoning at issue. If the two of you sat down with the SC justices for a conversation/discussion on these matters, how many seconds might it take for the two of you to realize you ought to shut up and listen?

Go ahead and argue your views. But forgo any humility as regards your grasp of issues, and you just set yourself up to learn nothing.

In all due respect, I suspect Okie and I and several others have done sufficient reading and have explored the various issues and have sufficient intelligence to have a reasonable grasp of the basics of the rights, liberties, protections, and regulations contained in the Constitution.

I believe we have more authority to judge what is and is not constitutional than you have authority to dictate to us what we do or do not know or understand.

0 Replies

Here are my first three posts in sequence (p 48,49). I "remembered" them as being a single post, but that's not correct.

Quote:

How does anyone get this stupid? It would seem impossible.

Quote:
Harris told the journalists "we have to have the faithful in government" because that is God's will. Separating religion and politics is "so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers," she said.

If God is doing the choosing, then whoever is in power is the one He chose. God picked Stalin? Clinton? Harris?

Quote:

Quote:
The dishonorable accept erroneous facts/quote/representations/characterizations of people just because they don't like the person and so want those facts/quotes/representations/characterizations to be true, they don't care whether they actually are or not.

Hogpoop. If the reporter altered words spoken or misrepresented the content, then that reporter ought to be fired.

If Harris said what is reported, she ought to be put on meds because what she is reported to have said is so illogical, not to mention so divorced from an understanding of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, that it suggests pathology.

Quote:

I have no reason at all to suspect the quotes are inaccurate or incomplete in a manner to significantly misrepresent what was said.

On the other hand, she has now gone through at least three campaign advisors, each who have left her employ. She is not being supported by the WH or the RNC. Her polls have been consistently in the basement and her chances of victory are not far off zero. Her statements here are simply over the edge, logically and in terms of American democratic traditions. Emotional balance is validly suspect.

So, first post I said she was stupid for the the logical problem.
In the second, I did suggest "meds" for the degree of illogic and for her disregard of constitutional ramifications.
In the third, I brought up the personnel problems and strategic errors in her campaign.

0 Replies

I couldn't find a quote where you questioned her mental balance, so I did misread the emotional balance thng as mental balance.

But going back to the arguments made in her defense:

1) If she is a Bible literalist, she believes what the Bible says about God choosing who will be rulers.
2) This view is not shared by all Christians but it is shared by at least hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians.
3) Most of these do not presume to question the mind of God, so who he allows to be in power is not their concern and not for them to say.
4) Most do believe Christian values to be far superior to any others, and therefore Christian legislators are their preference. Many believe that many of our problems are a direct result of abandoning Christian values.

Now you can disagree with this, think it's all a lot of hooey, think it's wrong, evil, or whatever you wish to think.

But to say it is irrational on the face of it and suggests any kind of pathology or mental or emotion imbalance, whatever it was you were attempting to communicate, just doesn't hold up on the face of it.

If she is wrong to be prejudiced against Atheists, then the Atheist is wrong to be prejudiced against her professed Christian beliefs.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

So, first post I said she was stupid for the the logical problem.
In the second, I did suggest "meds" for the degree of illogic and for her disregard of constitutional ramifications.
In the third, I brought up the personnel problems and strategic errors in her campaign.

The first two I have no problem with, blatham, you are free to have your opinion as to whether she is illogical or stupid or whatever. You are free to not vote for her and she is free to have opinions. All is fine so far. The third concern however bothers me in terms of what you are talking about when you say she disregards constitutional ramifications. Where did you get this opinion?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I couldn't find a quote where you questioned her mental balance, so I did misread the emotional balance thng as mental balance.

Foxfyre wrote:

But to say it is irrational on the face of it and suggests any kind of pathology or mental or emotion imbalance, whatever it was you were attempting to communicate, just doesn't hold up on the face of it.

You can't even manage to get through one post without resorting to distortion.

Foxfyre wrote:

If she is wrong to be prejudiced against Atheists, then the Atheist is wrong to be prejudiced against her professed Christian beliefs.

She did not mention athiests. She said that if you are not electing Christians, you are legislating sin. Last I checked "not Christians" is a much broader brush than "Athiests".

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know