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

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
No link Barnard? They'll want a link.

The following link is to a site that collects objectionable ACLU cases. All the links seem to go to the same ACLU watch group, and I cannot vouch for the objectivity of either site or the accuracy of the protrayals of the cases. But it is a starting place to explore the cases.

http://test.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/ACLU/StoryArchives.asp

It is cases like these that have created so much angst and opposition against the ACLU by Americans who do value all our Constitutionally protected liberties, not just those that the ACLU decides we should have.

Thanks for the link Foxfyre. I just scanned the top four listings and didn't see anything there that seemed objectionable to me. Do you see one or more that you find to be objectionable?

Oh....let's see.....without delving into the details any further than you probably did, how about all of them?

0 Replies

foxfyre

I'm going to end off this debate with you following these two clarifications, one peripheral and unimportant but done as a matter of accuracy, and the second the important matter. You can respond or not as you choose.

First, re Scientology...the wikipedia entry on Xenu etc is accurate. Any scientologist who purchases the service labelled OT III (one of a sequence of services provided in special facilities rather than at a local church) will absolutely not proceed where that information is not accepted as historical fact. Most members you will meet on the street or in a church will be relatively new or too poor to have purchased services to that level. And, as this information is confidential and locked up to anyone not at the OT III level, most members are unfamiliar with the data. Wikipedia may have carried a clumsy characterization of scientology's notions of the "thetan", I'm not sure what you read. But the source information itself is philosophically clumsy, if poetically described. I have studied this stuff in serious detail, including many of the books (a dozen or more), electronic communications and thousands of pages (that's not exaggerated) of Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letters and Bulletins.

This is the important part...

Quote:

My only observation/objection in this whole discussion is a notion that it is somehow only inappropriate for a Christian candidate to push Christian values while everybody else can push whatever they wish.

How and why you manage to continue misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my argument is beyond me. But I seriously dislike you for doing so.

I have not argued that it is "only inappropriate for a Christian candidate to push Christian values". I wouldn't argue it because I don't think it. Given that I would happily have Demond Tutu or Jimmy Carter or Garry Wills or Martin Luther King or any number of Christians hold any office at all, how could your statement possibly make sense?

What I have argued is that an individual of ANY faith might hold notions which run contrary to both the constitution and to the goal of liberty. A foolish christian or a foolish Muslim or a foolish Leninist atheist, or some sect within the larger community of his/her faith, may well hold such notions. To criticize the Taliban is not to criticize the Muslim faith. To criticize Dominionists or the witch trials is not to criticize Christianity. When you criticize the believes held by members of the Inquisition, do you criticize Christianity? And are you guilty of criticizing those who push Christian belief while allowing everyone else to push whatever they wish? Obviously, not. So knock off the misrepresentation of my argument.

Liberty (religious or political) and democracy are forwarded through encouraging diversity of opinion and belief.

Any individual or sect which desires and acts to limit diversity acts contrary to liberty and the constitution's clear intent.

Just as a Taliban adherent who says "You forward sin if you do not vote for people who hold MY version of belief" seeks to exclude all other beliefs, including other versions of his own faith community is acting to limit diversity because he actually thinks such diversity is bad, any other faith member doing so, including a foolish christian, is equally guilty of working against diversity and liberty.

Being an atheist or a Buddhist or a Christian is no guarantee against also being a fool and being anti-democracy and anti-liberty, even if too foolish to even recognize it.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
No link Barnard? They'll want a link.

The following link is to a site that collects objectionable ACLU cases. All the links seem to go to the same ACLU watch group, and I cannot vouch for the objectivity of either site or the accuracy of the protrayals of the cases. But it is a starting place to explore the cases.

http://test.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/ACLU/StoryArchives.asp

It is cases like these that have created so much angst and opposition against the ACLU by Americans who do value all our Constitutionally protected liberties, not just those that the ACLU decides we should have.

Thanks for the link Foxfyre. I just scanned the top four listings and didn't see anything there that seemed objectionable to me. Do you see one or more that you find to be objectionable?

Oh....let's see.....without delving into the details any further than you probably did, how about all of them?

What was that about?

I clicked on each of the top four links and read all that was provided. For instance, the top one...

Quote:

ACLU Files Lawsuit Over Indianapolis Sex Offender Ban
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
By A. Urti

The ACLU of Indiana has filed a lawsuit in United States District Court over a new ordinance which bans convicted sex offenders from coming within 1,000 feet on parks, pools, and playgrounds when children are present.

The ordinance, which imposes maximum fines of $2,500 for violations, passed with an overwhelming 25-2 vote in early May and took effect immediately.

Six sex offenders claim that the ordinance is constitutionally vague and violates their rights.

"It is virtually impossible to travel through the streets and interstate highways in Marion County without passing within 1,000 feet of a playground open to the public, recreation center, bathing beach, swimming pool or wading pool, sports field, or facility," states the complaint.

The ACLU of Indiana and the plaintiffs are seeking temporary and permanent injunctions barring the city from enforcing the new law, according to The Associated Press.

Enforcing a 1000 ft. (nearly a qtr. mile) ban levied on all types of sex offenders, even while in a vehicle traveling down an interstate highway seems excessive to what would be needed to protect children.

0 Replies

Blatham writes

Quote:

How and why you manage to continue misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my argument is beyond me. But I seriously dislike you for doing so.

How and why you manage to put all our discussions outside of their specific context which misrepresents my argument is beyond me. I don't dislike you for doing so. I just think you sound so very much like a liberal who cannot focus on the specific issue being discussed.

I commented on my impressions of Scientology, Jehovah Witnesses, Islam etc because I am interested in these subjects. I have no reason to think you are misrepresenting your understanding of any of these, but I don't consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source about much of anything unless it is backed up by another credible source.

I think my remarks very definitely acknowledged and agreed with you that anybody can have a screw loose and apply their beliefs inappropriately and/or unconstitutionally.

My opinion is that Katherine Harris's beliefs do not do that and I structured
my argument to show why they do not. This was the issue we were discussing and this was the issue I was addressing. All the other stuff is only background for whatever rationale is used.

Now if you tell me that your intent was never to say that Katherine Harris was unfit for public service because a) she thinks God puts those in power that he wants in power and/or b) she encouraged Baptists to vote for Christians instead of for sin, I will accept that you simply mistated your opinion on that yesterday. I took exception to that and I my entire argument has been support for my opinion that her Christian views do not disqualify her for public office in any way.

And I also attempted to point out the hypocrisy of those who would condemn her for her Christian views but accept views on similar kinds of things.

Now if you cannot see that, I don't know how to explain it any better and you're probably right, we shouldn't discuss it any further.

0 Replies

Mesquite writes

Quote:

Enforcing a 1000 ft. (nearly a qtr. mile) ban levied on all types of sex offenders, even while in a vehicle traveling down an interstate highway seems excessive to what would be needed to protect children.

I would say to sex offenders that if you don't like restrictive laws, don't commit sex offenses. And if the ordinance is too restrictive for your liking, then find someplace to live where people don't care.

I don't want sex offenders living, working, walking, driving, or traveling out of body anywhere near children and 1000 feet is way too close for my liking.

So, yes, I would oppose the ACLU butting in on a city ordinance that attempts to protect children from sex offenders. I am unlikely to support any law that makes it easier for sex offenders to get closer to kids.

So what else do you have?

0 Replies

OK, 2nd from the top. This one is right up your alley. when a complaint is made about improper use of public funds, it is summarized as "seeking to expel expression of the Christian faith".

Quote:

ACLU Targeting Funding For VA. Prison Ministries
Monday, May 01, 2006
By A. Urti

The ACLU is once again seeking to expel expression of the Christian faith -- this time by seeking to end public funding for Christian ministries that provide services to prison inmates in Virginia, including sharing the truth about Jesus Christ. The ALCU contends that allowing funding for such "proselytizing" violates the separation of church and state.

Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, says that "Jails can open their doors to individuals of all religions to come in on a voluntary basis and offer religious services of any kind - even sectarian if they like. They just can't pay them to do it."

However, Willis contends, once money is involved, the services that are provided must be of a "broad religious-spiritual" nature.

The Origins of the Inquiry

The ACLU will investigate twenty-five Virginia jails randomly selected to determine whether or not funding for Christian ministries is widespread, Southeastern Christian Correctional Ministry has been given money by three prisons located in the same region to provide services to inmates.

Another ministry, Good News, has been given funds by the Chesterfield County Sheriff's Office and will continue to do so, according to Lieutenant Dennis Proffitt.

"We don't plan to change a thing that we're doing," he said. "The Chesterfield County Sheriff's Office operates according to the law, opinions of the court and policy of the sheriff, and not the opinion of the ACLU."

Irony

Of course, the ironic lining here is that while the ACLU does not like public funding for Christian ministries, it sure doesn't mind when those same public funds fill its own legal coffers.

If the "sharing of the truth about Jesus" needs to be paid for then let the prisoners pay for it themselves.

0 Replies

Mesquite writes

Quote:

If the "sharing of the truth about Jesus" needs to be paid for then let the prisoners pay for it themselves.

This one is in one of those ethics areas I think. The ACLU doesn't murmur a second of protest about our elected House and Senate representatives allocating well over six figures a year of taxpayer money to pay chaplains to offer opening prayers for legislative sessions and provide such counseling as is necessary for individual legislators. I strongly object to this as those legislators are certainly able to pay for their chaplains out of pocket or seek volunteers or go into the community for their religious needs.

Prisoners, however, are not able to go outside of their area for their religious needs nor are they likely to have the funds to pay for a pastor. So yes, utilize whatever volunteer ministries are willing to come to the prison as I am quite sure that these will have a calming and positive influence on most inmates who utilize them.

So far as outside groups who are brought in for purposes of instruction, rehabilitation, etc., I think it would be wrong/illegal to restrict such groups to Christian groups; however, so long as the policy is to provide the services, I have no objection to a Christian group providing them even if Jesus Christ gets mentioned along the way. And I think Jewish and Islamic and Buddhist and any other religious groups who can provide such services should also be used. I also have no problem with Bibles, the Qu'ran or any other religious texts being provided to prisoners and access to religious services/practices being made available to them.

Again such accommodations cannot be restricted to Christian only. But it definitely would be unconstitutional to say that they cannot be Christian or religious in nature. The ACLU should be told to butt out. Again their hypocrisy is stunning.

What else?

0 Replies

Next up and 3rd down from the top is not even a lawsuit, just a sponsorship, but the subject of their wrath is an evil gay rights fellowship which they "assume that this fellowship will also focus on deconstructing traditional marriage." The horror!

Quote:

Florida ACLU Creates Gay Rights Fellowship
Friday, January 13, 2006
By A. Urti

A $50,000 grant from the Community Foundation of Broward County will fund the John C. Graves Fellowship, a project of the ACLU of Florida, to advance homosexual rights and "combat discrimination" based on sexual orientation.

According to Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, "With this generous grant, the Community Foundation of Broward has shown its commitment to safeguarding equality for all people."

The one-year fellowship, named after former Broward homosexual activist Dr. John C. Graves, will focus on, among other policy issues, advocating for foster and adopted children in same-sex households.

As the petition effort to protect the definition of marriage in Florida as only between one man and one woman gains traction in Florida, it seems safe to assume that this fellowship will also focus on deconstructing traditional marriage.

0 Replies

Quote:

Next up and 3rd down from the top is not even a lawsuit, just a sponsorship, but the subject of their wrath is an evil gay rights fellowship which they "assume that this fellowship will also focus on deconstructing traditional marriage." The horror!

Would depend on whether the focus is indeed on adoption and the deconstruction of marriage. As you well know, I support gays (and singles of whatever sexual orientation) being able to adopt children, but I want preference to go to a traditional family with a mom and a dad as, all other things being equal, I know that is the very best situation for children. For the same reason I do not want the defintion of marriage changed.

I also resist special rights for anybody whether it be for gays, women, minorities or whatever. I think such is a slippery slope that results in unintneded inequities, resentment, and other negative consequences. I support equal rights for everybody.

Having said that, I have no problem with the ACLU receiving or using a private grant for any legal purpose they choose. I only have problems with them using whatever means to try to try to force me to accept the distorted and unconstitutional policies that they promote.

0 Replies

Fourth down from the top and last of the ones I initially looked at is one that is close to home for me. My highschool years were in Palm Beach County and the Boynton Beach kids used the same highshcool that I did. Back then my highschool was lily white because segregation was the law in Florida.

They don't give the background on this law so I don't know how long it has been around, but I would guess that it came into being soon after a ruling that reciting the pledge could not be mandatory. Requiring kids to stand during the reciting of the Pledge is to me a rather odd component for State Law and has a ring of pandering.

Quote:

ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law
Wednesday, January 04, 2006

A lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Palm Beach County, Florida, school board claims that a student's first and fourteenth amendment rights were violated. This infraction occurred when, says Cameron Frazier, his teacher punished him for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The lawsuit is "much ado about nothing" according to one constitutional attorney.

On December 8, Frazier decided to sit out the recitation of the Pledge, as he had since the sixth grade. According to an ACLU press release, a math teacher at Boynton Beach High School cursed at him and accused him of being unpatriotic.

Florida law requires that all students stand during the recitation of the Pledge, whether they recite it themselves or not. Brian Fahling, an attorney with American Family Association Center for Law and Policy does not believe that the law is overreaching, as the ACLU does.

"Those [standing during the Pledge] are very reasonable accommodations and one of the features that schools have historically been accredited in instilling in their children is one of hopefully some sense of civility and decorum in respect for others," said Fahling.

The ACLU wants the Florida law to recognize a student's prerogative to remain seated during the recitation of the Pledge.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Fourth down from the top and last of the ones I initially looked at is one that is close to home for me. My highschool years were in Palm Beach County and the Boynton Beach kids used the same highshcool that I did. Back then my highschool was lily white because segregation was the law in Florida.

They don't give the background on this law so I don't know how long it has been around, but I would guess that it came into being soon after a ruling that reciting the pledge could not be mandatory. Requiring kids to stand during the reciting of the Pledge is to me a rather odd component for State Law and has a ring of pandering.

Quote:
ACLU to Contest Florida Pledge of Allegiance Law
Wednesday, January 04, 2006

A lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Palm Beach County, Florida, school board claims that a student's first and fourteenth amendment rights were violated. This infraction occurred when, says Cameron Frazier, his teacher punished him for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The lawsuit is "much ado about nothing" according to one constitutional attorney.

On December 8, Frazier decided to sit out the recitation of the Pledge, as he had since the sixth grade. According to an ACLU press release, a math teacher at Boynton Beach High School cursed at him and accused him of being unpatriotic.

Florida law requires that all students stand during the recitation of the Pledge, whether they recite it themselves or not. Brian Fahling, an attorney with American Family Association Center for Law and Policy does not believe that the law is overreaching, as the ACLU does.

"Those [standing during the Pledge] are very reasonable accommodations and one of the features that schools have historically been accredited in instilling in their children is one of hopefully some sense of civility and decorum in respect for others," said Fahling.

The ACLU wants the Florida law to recognize a student's prerogative to remain seated during the recitation of the Pledge.

I have no problem with the school requiring the children to exhibit good manners which would include no disruptive talking or behavior in class, standing when the flag is presented or carried by, standing for the National Anthem, and standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Actually since immigrants being sworn in as naturalized citizens are required to stated the Pledge of Allegiance, I would have no problem with the children being required to recite it. But I also have no problem if a child is not required to recite it but is given opportunity to do so.

But expecting a child to demonstrate normal courtesy is not a violation of anybody's rights and this should not be interfered with.

This is another one that the ACLU is butting into a reasonable school policy and they should be shown the door quickly and in no uncertain terms.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Would depend on whether the focus is indeed on adoption and the deconstruction of marriage. As you well know, I support gays (and singles of whatever sexual orientation) being able to adopt children, but I want preference to go to a traditional family with a mom and a dad as, all other things being equal, I know that is the very best situation for children. For the same reason I do not want the defintion of marriage changed.

"Deconstruction of marriage" is just perjoritive terminology with no basis in reality.

Your stance on adoption is still unclear to me. It sounds a lot like you can ride the bus, but you have to ride in the back. How do you provide "preference when all else is equal"? That sounds like an extremely ambiguous requirement that would be nearly impossible to administer. It sounds like nothing more than lip service.

Foxfyre wrote:

I also resist special rights for anybody whether it be for gays, women, minorities or whatever. I think such is a slippery slope that results in unintneded inequities, resentment, and other negative consequences. I support equal rights for everybody.

Yet you want special restrictions for same sex couples when it come to adoption rights.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Would depend on whether the focus is indeed on adoption and the deconstruction of marriage. As you well know, I support gays (and singles of whatever sexual orientation) being able to adopt children, but I want preference to go to a traditional family with a mom and a dad as, all other things being equal, I know that is the very best situation for children. For the same reason I do not want the defintion of marriage changed.

"Deconstruction of marriage" is just perjoritive terminology with no basis in reality.

Your stance on adoption is still unclear to me. It sounds a lot like you can ride the bus, but you have to ride in the back. How do you provide "preference when all else is equal"? That sounds like an extremely ambiguous requirement that would be nearly impossible to administer. It sounds like nothing more than lip service.

Foxfyre wrote:
I also resist special rights for anybody whether it be for gays, women, minorities or whatever. I think such is a slippery slope that results in unintneded inequities, resentment, and other negative consequences. I support equal rights for everybody.

Yet you want special restrictions for same sex couples when it come to adoption rights.

Traditional marriage is what it has always been. Any change in the definition of that would make it something that it is not now and would be a deconstruction of it. Anywy, I took the word from your post so I wouldn't think you could reasonably quibble that I used it.

Equal rights is equal rights. Everybody plays by the same rules and is entitled to the same benefits. If the qualifications for linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys is a certain height, weight, ability, talent, then all who can meet those qualifications should be able to try out regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, religion, etc. etc. etc. That somebody doesn't have those qualifications doesn't mean s/he is being discriminated against because s/he isn't hired by the Dallas Cowboys. S/he has the same right to try to meet the qualifications as anybody else.

Same sex couples cannot provide a child with a mother and a father. If they could they should be afforded the same preference for adoption as a heterosexual married couple.

And so forth and so on.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Equal rights is equal rights. Everybody plays by the same rules and is entitled to the same benefits. If the qualifications for linebacker for the Dallas Cowboys is a certain height, weight, ability, talent, then all who can meet those qualifications should be able to try out regardless of sex, sexual orientation, race, creed, religion, etc. etc. etc. That somebody doesn't have those qualifications doesn't mean s/he is being discriminated against because s/he isn't hired by the Dallas Cowboys. S/he has the same right to try to meet the qualifications as anybody else.

Good grief. The requirements for a linebacker are not "a certain height, weight, ability, talent". The one that gets the job is the one that performs the best utilizing all of their physical and mental abilities. There is no magic number for each characteristic or ability.

What I was attempting to get out of you is how you would apply your preference criteria. Since you are not ruling out SS adoption altogether, how would you expect an administrator to divy up all of the pluses and minuses such as education, salary, stability, home environment, child care skills, etc?

Foxfyre wrote:

Same sex couples cannot provide a child with a mother and a father. If they could they should be afforded the same preference for adoption as a heterosexual married couple.

So you say, but IMO that depends entirely upon the couple and a multitude of factors including family support, whether they be same sex, opposite sex, or single parent.

Edit: after reading that again it looks as though you are for making both mother and father a requirement? If so, that is not giving a preference.

0 Replies

You must have missed the line "all things being equal". And if you want to nitpick the terminology please take it somewhere else. You asked what my rationale was and I provided it as clearly and succinctly as I could. I think the ACLU should butt out of all these 'class action' kinds of issues and focus on real injustices and real corruption of the constitution. In my opinion they don't do that and they do as much if not more harm than good as well as demonstrating a great deal of hypocrisy in the kinds of cases they take on.

And yes, all other things being equal, a mother AND a father is the most favorable circumstance for any child. And that should be the first preference for choosing adoptive parents.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You must have missed the line "all things being equal". And if you want to nitpick the terminology please take it somewhere else.

Nope I didn't miss it. That is why I asked this. Perhaps you missed it.

mesquite wrote:

How do you provide "preference when all else is equal"? That sounds like an extremely ambiguous requirement that would be nearly impossible to administer.

and this

mesquite wrote:

how would you expect an administrator to divy up all of the pluses and minuses such as education, salary, stability, home environment, child care skills, etc?

In reality there is no such thing as "all things being equal" when dealing with potential parenthood. If you cannot answer then have then say so.

That was not nitpicking terminology. It was direct straight forward questions to expose the nonsense. Take it somewhere else you say? Go pee up a rope.

0 Replies

It's just like the marriage laws are 100% equitable. Any willing man can marry any willing woman within the laws of the state in which they marry. That means that whether somebody is straight or gay, black, white, or polka dot or any other criteria you wish to use, the same law applies equitably to everybody.

And yes you can give preference to a married man and wife as the first choice to adopt children without discriminating against anybody since all have the same right to marry.

That somebody can't find anybody to marry or doesn't want to marry or just puts it off indefinitely does not alter his/her rights to marry in any way. Nor does it alter his/her rights to adopt children when the requirements apply equally to everybody.

0 Replies

Uhhhhh, Mesquite, I hate to burst your balloon, but the plumbing is not compatible.

0 Replies

Well I'm doing very well I think. Blatham dislikes me and Mesquite has offered what I'm sure he believes is constructive advice. Add that to the customary insults thrown at me by other liberals on A2K and I can rest knowing my job is done. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It's just like the marriage laws are 100% equitable. Any willing man can marry any willing woman within the laws of the state in which they marry. That means that whether somebody is straight or gay, black, white, or polka dot or any other criteria you wish to use, the same law applies equitably to everybody.

And yes you can give preference to a married man and wife as the first choice to adopt children without discriminating against anybody since all have the same right to marry.

That somebody can't find anybody to marry or doesn't want to marry or just puts it off indefinitely does not alter his/her rights to marry in any way. Nor does it alter his/her rights to adopt children when the requirements apply equally to everybody.

I see. So when you say "I support gays (and singles of whatever sexual orientation) being able to adopt children, but I want preference to go to a traditional family with a mom and a dad as, all other things being equal, I know that is the very best situation for children.", what it means is that the preference is absolute and the married male and female should always be the choice.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if my reading is wrong, please correct me.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know