Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the beef with the ACLU?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 199 (384034)
02-09-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by subbie
02-09-2007 8:07 PM


Re: The ACLU
LOL! Truly, Sub, you're doing a much better job in a lot fewer words than I could.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 8:07 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 8:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 107 of 199 (384035)
02-09-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
02-09-2007 8:09 PM


Re: The ACLU
Damn, crash! Never would have expected praise from you!
Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 8:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 8:13 PM subbie has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 199 (384036)
02-09-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by subbie
02-09-2007 8:11 PM


Re: The ACLU
Never would have expected praise from you!
Do I really come off as that big an asshole?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 8:11 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 8:18 PM crashfrog has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 109 of 199 (384037)
02-09-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2007 7:51 PM


Re: The ACLU
For instance, the interpretation of "free speech" is so broad that the Supreme Court has ruled flag burning as Constitutionally protected. But that's not speech. That's behavior-- destructive behavior at that. And before you ask, I believe fully that any one may despise the United States if they so desire. That's not my legal issue with it. My personal issue is that its childish and pointless. But that's just my personal feelings which isn't any more or less valid than their feeling. The issue is that its destructive.
Let me ask you a question. Can someone burn a flag in a solemn ceremony for purposes of destroying a worn flag?
No need to respond, of course they can. In fact, that's the method recommended. Now, what's the difference between that and someone burning a flag to protest what the government has done? I'll answer that one for you as well. The message they are sending.
That's it.
Now, you explain why it's not speech.
And interestingly enough, in virtually every city in the US, there are ordinances that stipulate that nothing is to be burned within the confines of public square... Nothing, except flags.
I call bullshit.
Find one.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jaderis, posted 02-12-2007 8:22 PM subbie has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 110 of 199 (384038)
02-09-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
02-09-2007 8:13 PM


Re: The ACLU
Ummmm, I'll take the fifth on that question.
I was simply referring to the fact that you and I don't see eye to eye real often, and our discussions have gotten rather heated at times.
But mainly, it was a joke.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 8:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 8:43 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 111 of 199 (384043)
02-09-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2007 7:51 PM


Re: The ACLU
Secondly, the freedom of speech that the ACLU insists upon is an extremely broad interpretation. The reality is, we are not allowed to say whatever we want. Case in point: Can I scream, "Bomb! Bomb!" in an airport? No, I can't. Is my freedom of speech being limited? Absolutely not. If I call up the President right now and say, "I'm gonna kill you you neocon fascist pig!" No, I can't. That isn't freedom speech.
Strawman. The ACLU has never advocated that any of these things be protected by the First Amendment. Neither have they ever advocated that we be allowed to say "whatever we want."
Hey, maybe that's why you hate the ACLU so much. You don't have a clue what they really stand for.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 7:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 112 of 199 (384046)
02-09-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by subbie
02-09-2007 8:18 PM


Re: The ACLU
I was simply referring to the fact that you and I don't see eye to eye real often, and our discussions have gotten rather heated at times.
But mainly, it was a joke.
Heh, gotcha.
If it's been heated in the past, it's just a reflection of my passion for the issues. It was never personal. And I'm sorry if you took it that way. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled demolition of the opponents of civil liberties...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 8:18 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 113 of 199 (384049)
02-09-2007 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by subbie
02-09-2007 8:07 PM


Re: "Hate Speech on Campus" link (Forum guideline violation alert)
A little quoting and/or commentary on the links content would be a very good thing. One should not have to go to the linked page to be able to determine any idea of what you are talking about.
What your message is, is essentally a bare link, which is a forums guideline violation.
Please, NO RESPONSES to this message AT THIS TOPIC. I one feels one must respond, go to the "General discussion" topic, link below.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by subbie, posted 02-09-2007 8:07 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 199 (384065)
02-09-2007 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by jar
02-08-2007 3:06 PM


Re: What is wrong with Communism?
Jesus certainly believed in joint ownership of the resources. Admittedly he did subscribe to the manifesto as laid out in Animal Farm that while all critters are equal, some are more equal than others.
This will be my one time responding in this vein because its off topic. I feel obligated, however, because I asked you to expound for me.
In my opinion we are today very far removed from the original dream of the Drafters and I'm willing to bet they'd be shocked to see the nation in its current state. I could blame Socialism, and Liberalism, and Communism, and indeed, to some extent I do. However, they are not the principle offenders in my book. I blame Christians for sitting by idly, trying not to stir the pot. Well, now the kettle is bubbling over and it won’t be long before our rights will be completely null and void.
Before I get in to your Jesus/Communist connection, I think we should first go over the Separation of Church and State in order to get to the bottom of a few things. (No, this is not a tangent. Just bear with me please). The phrase, “Separation of Church and State,” has become a mantra for many people of the United States and even abroad. It is, however, a common misinterpretation of Establishment Clause to the 1st Amendment, which reads,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Even though the words, separation, church, or state, are not found anywhere on any Founding document, it has been repeated many times over. If then, these words do not appear on any official documentation, why do we hear so much of this oft-repeated cry?
In the 17th and 18th centuries many Europeans immigrated to the United States in order to flee from religious tyranny and religious persecution. With, perhaps, the exception of Roger Williams and William Penn, most groups did not believe religious toleration was the explicit or implicit goal of setting up a theocratic state compatible with their beliefs. They recognized the problems associated with theocracy-- the most obvious reason; everyone wanted to be ”Theo.’
Ironically, the infamous phrase in question came from Roger Williams. Thomas Jefferson, however, popularized the term when he sent a letter to a group known as the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. The Danbury Baptists had heard a pernicious rumor that the government was seeking to adopt an official state religion. Jefferson wrote this letter on behalf of the Baptists, easing their mind that the government had no intention of instituting a national religion.
What he said, specifically, was that a wall between the church and state has been erected, meaning: they were allowed to freely worship the Lord, whomever or whatever that happened to be, in whatever manner that seemed fitting. Jefferson’s intent was to assure them that their rights to free assembly under their faith would not be interfered with by external influences, such as the government.
The 1st Amendment seeks to ensure that anyone may practice his or her religion without hindrance from the government; such as the hindrance we have seen in Stalin’s Russia. Likewise, it was established that the government would not mandate their own religion; such as we have seen in Constantine’s, Rome. That’s it! That’s all that the 1st Amendment means. If you have bought into a lie, or read more into it than that, I am not shy to inform you that you’re wrong. Clearly, this has been taken so far out of context that its being used as ammunition, by such groups as the ACLU, against certain religious institutions.
Secularists like to show how Congress added, "In God we trust," to certain currency, and added, “One nation under God,” to the pledge of allegiance in 1955. While that is true, we read in the Declaration of Independence, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” The term "Creator" was an intentional insertion so as to not seem partial to any specific belief. In this way it was left ambiguous on purpose in order to respect all faiths.
I happen to agree wholeheartedly that the government should be kept free from forcing individuals to side with any particular dogma. I think a theocracy is insanity and it undermines the very freewill given to us by God, if you are so inclined to believe that. Conversely, this has recently been taken so far to the extreme that you cannot even honor the God you love publicly without the fear of reprisal. This is equally grievous. And its groups like the ACLU who are lobbying to see that churches are taxed as a business; however, they fail to realize that you cannot tax anything that generates revenue solely from donation. But I digress because we've been over all this before in another thread.
We know that it is a violation of the 1st Amendment for any public school to show partiality towards any given religious institution. What you may not be aware of is that one could legitimately argue that the public school system, itself, violates the US Constitution. I say this because Article 10 of the US Constitution says that any powers not specifically cased by the Federal Government must allow the states to decide for themselves. This is not the case because the public school system is ultimately overseen by the Federal government.
The public school system was designed to afford everyone the opportunity to receive an education. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, except for the fact that its long been used as a vehicle to foist anti-religious sentiments. Besides, if the ACLU is so about Constitutionality, perhaps they should delve in to this.
Now a little background of the public school system. (Yes, I'm going somewhere with this. Just hang on). Horace Mann, otherwise known as the Father of Public Education, stated that his goal was to deliver Christian children through the public school system. Similarly, the first president of the American Humanist Association, John Dewey, stated that he was personally going to solve the Christian problem, by using the public school system. To be honest, they’ve done a bang-up job thus far towards the fulfillment of that goal. Former Nebraska Senator and Humanist member, Peter Hoagland, speaking of the public school system, said, “We are preparing their children for a life in a global, one-world society, and those Christian kids will not fit in.”
Hmmm...? That sure sounds exclusionary to me. It seems that America has been heading down this path for some time now, incrementally losing its grip on reality. It has been increasingly apparent that many Americans want a Socialistic/Communistic society. Do they really understand what it entails or are they just being anti-establishment because its emo? I don’t know what to tell you, other than the proof is in the pudding. We don’t see Americans clamoring aboard makeshift rafts, risking life and limb, in order to go to Castro’s Utopia. Quite the contrary, we see Cubans in droves fleeing this bliss. Likewise, we don’t see Americans stuffing themselves in tiny cargo spaces desperately trying to flee from their homeland. No, rather we see the Chinese trafficking themselves on the open seas, leaving their childhood home behind for a better way of life, away from their Utopian bliss that has gone mad. But, if any of you think it’s so wonderful, by all means, go sample a taste of reality. Just don’t complain when it tastes bitter. Moreover, just remember, you won’t have to sneak out of the country to go to your bliss; you are free to leave because America recognizes your God-given rights.
Before I go any further, let me say that America is far from perfection. I also do not agree with this blind patriotism that many Americans suffer from. In that way, I find parity with groups like the ACLU.
Now, having said all of that in response to your assertion that Jesus was a communist, lets examine what a democracy is and what a socialist state entails and see which is more compatible with the tenets of Jesus.
THEISTIC: Constitutional Republic
ATHEISTIC: Socialist Government
“My objective in life is to dethrone God and destroy Capitalism.” -Karl Marx
Mmmm, yes, I see how Jesus and communism parallel.
Lets go further though, shall we? The Communist Manifesto urged a fledgling nation seeking to conform to communist ideals to create a centralized bank, institute a progressive income tax, and establish a public school system. It seems that perhaps America is closer than once believed to achieving our slice of 'bliss.’ If, however, a nation opts not to conform, then agents will placed within the nation, spreading disinformation in order to erode it from the inside out. Naturally, sympathizers will join in on the seditious festivities, and thus, an ever-greater support for revolution will grow.
Eight rules for a Communist Revolution:
              In 1929, Joseph Stalin established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 he massacred an estimated 30-100 million dissidents because no one could defend themselves. Under Mao-Tse Tung, China from 1935 to 1949 exterminated 20 million of his own people. From 1939 to 1949, Adolph Hitler introduced gun control. The outcome was 13 million people murdered, because no one could defend themselves.
              Which brings me to my next question. If the ACLU is so keen on protecting the Constitution and using the Amendments to back their play, why no mention of the 2nd Amendment? When was the last time they came to the aid of an offense against the Second?
              Now, where in that spells J-E-S-U-S?

              "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

              This message is a reply to:
               Message 66 by jar, posted 02-08-2007 3:06 PM jar has replied

              Replies to this message:
               Message 115 by jar, posted 02-09-2007 10:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
               Message 116 by anglagard, posted 02-09-2007 10:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 02-09-2007 10:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 02-10-2007 3:06 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

                
              jar
              Member (Idle past 394 days)
              Posts: 34026
              From: Texas!!
              Joined: 04-20-2004


              Message 115 of 199 (384068)
              02-09-2007 10:32 PM
              Reply to: Message 114 by Hyroglyphx
              02-09-2007 9:57 PM


              More dancin from NJ
              Well, most of that is simply another attempt to misdirect the audience, to palm the pea, con the rube and move the goal posts. It is filled with absurdities and down right falsehoods.
              For example:
              THEISTIC: Constitutional Republic
              What nonsense. Sorry but that is just bullshit.
              You are relating to entirely different and unrelated subjects, Theism and a Constitutional Republic.
              Then you continue with misdirection:
              ATHEISTIC: Socialist Government
              Again, there is NO relationship between Atheism and Socialism.
              Further, NONE of that has anything to do with Communism.
              You continue with misrepresentation, for example bringing in gun control. Get serious. It has NOTHING to do with the subject.
              Try for ONCE to address the issue and stop trying to palm the pea, or practice more so you are not so obvious.
              And when it comes to gun control, based on your posts you probably shoot about as well as the average cop or SWAT team member. LOL

              Aslan is not a Tame Lion

              This message is a reply to:
               Message 114 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 9:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

              Replies to this message:
               Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 11:19 PM jar has replied

                
              anglagard
              Member (Idle past 836 days)
              Posts: 2339
              From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
              Joined: 03-18-2006


              Message 116 of 199 (384069)
              02-09-2007 10:33 PM
              Reply to: Message 114 by Hyroglyphx
              02-09-2007 9:57 PM


              Re: What is wrong with Communism?
              NJ writes:
              This will be my one time responding in this vein because its off topic. I feel obligated, however, because I asked you to expound for me.
              I think you posted this screed in this thread knowing it was off-topic in order to eliminate any possibility of refutation.
              When you have the guts to actually debate your beliefs in this vein instead of just make unfounded assertions and promulgate historic inaccuracy under the guise of being off-topic consider posting in this thread Message 1
              Either that or start your own PNT which may be an even better idea.
              Hell, no one is even allowed to agree with you either in part or in total when you do this as it would also be off-topic.

              This message is a reply to:
               Message 114 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 9:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              Chiroptera
              Inactive Member


              Message 117 of 199 (384074)
              02-09-2007 10:43 PM
              Reply to: Message 114 by Hyroglyphx
              02-09-2007 9:57 PM


              Founding, yet shocked, Fathers
              quote:
              In my opinion we are today very far removed from the original dream of the Drafters and I'm willing to bet they'd be shocked to see the nation in its current state.
              I agree that the Founding Fathers would be shocked if they could see the current political debate; however, as I have pointed out, they were quite aware of their own limitations, and I think they would be pretty shocked that so many people would be obsessing over their 200 year old views.

              This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

              This message is a reply to:
               Message 114 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 9:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              Hyroglyphx
              Inactive Member


              Message 118 of 199 (384077)
              02-09-2007 11:19 PM
              Reply to: Message 115 by jar
              02-09-2007 10:32 PM


              Re: More denial
              Well, most of that is simply another attempt to misdirect the audience, to palm the pea, con the rube and move the goal posts.
              Jar, I spent the greater portion of an hour writing that and correlating every thing we've been talking with the inclusion of the Constitution, the Amendments, the ACLU's views on those two items, the connection of their socialist tendencies and their anti-Christian sentiments. I then paralleled those communist ideals that directly contravene any belief held by Jesus by giving the tenets of a communistic revolution. And you denounce my thread, claiming that I'm "palming the pea?"
              What exactly are you looking for Jar, because I can apparently do no right in your eyes? You brought up Jesus which has no conceivable relevance to the topic. Naturally, that's perfectly acceptable. And I take the time to tie each thing we've discussed together to paint a big picture for you, and instead of at least appreciating the time I invested in explaining my position to you, instead you harass me with the your incessant and worn out Off Topic card.
              quote:
              THEISTIC: Constitutional Republic
              What nonsense. Sorry but that is just bullshit.
              You are relating to entirely different and unrelated subjects, Theism and a Constitutional Republic.
              ..... Were you going to actually explain why its bullshit or were you just expecting me to take your word for it?
              quote:
              ATHEISTIC: Socialist Government
              Again, there is NO relationship between Atheism and Socialism.
              Again, were going to actually explain why there is no connection or am I just supposed to take that for face value? While you're at it you can name me some Christian communists to give your position even a modicum of truth.
              And when it comes to gun control, based on your posts you probably shoot about as well as the average cop or SWAT team member. LOL
              I honestly don't know what to make of this statement.

              "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

              This message is a reply to:
               Message 115 by jar, posted 02-09-2007 10:32 PM jar has replied

              Replies to this message:
               Message 119 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-09-2007 11:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 120 by jar, posted 02-09-2007 11:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              Minnemooseus
              Member
              Posts: 3941
              From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
              Joined: 11-11-2001
              Member Rating: 10.0


              Message 119 of 199 (384079)
              02-09-2007 11:32 PM
              Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
              02-09-2007 11:19 PM


              Too much communism discussion in this topic
              I would love to see you bring your perspectives on cummunism to the Communism (Godless or otherwise) topic. Feel free to copy/paste from this topic.
              I think I might be interested in replying to you at the above cited.
              Moose

              Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
              Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
              "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
              "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
              "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

              This message is a reply to:
               Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 11:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              jar
              Member (Idle past 394 days)
              Posts: 34026
              From: Texas!!
              Joined: 04-20-2004


              Message 120 of 199 (384080)
              02-09-2007 11:41 PM
              Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
              02-09-2007 11:19 PM


              Still playing misdirection.
              While you're at it you can name me some Christian communists to give your position even a modicum of truth.
              You really can't get anything right can you?
              What does Christian Communist have to do with Socialism or Constitutional Republic?
              You continually try changing the subject, conflating subjects and seem to think the readers don't notice.
              Were you going to actually explain why its bullshit or were you just expecting me to take your word for it?
              I did explain, and you even quoted it.
              jar writes:
              What nonsense. Sorry but that is just bullshit.
              You are relating to entirely different and unrelated subjects, Theism and a Constitutional Republic.
              A Constitutional Republic has no relationship to theism. It could be secular (the US) or nominally theistic. Trying to link the two together simply by assertion is sophomoric.
              Atheism and Socialism are also unrelated. An example of a theistic socialist community would be most monastic orders.
              Then there is the attempt to jump to Communism as though anything you posted had jack to do with it, and then went even further by jumping to a Communist Revolution.
              You created a parody of Communism. If you wish to discuss it in depth, please start a thread on it. I would love to present some of the work, such as the thoughts and writings of Trotsky.
              jar writes:
              And when it comes to gun control, based on your posts you probably shoot about as well as the average cop or SWAT team member. LOL
              to which NJ replied:
              NJ writes:
              I honestly don't know what to make of this statement.
              Well I've seen cops and SWAT Team members shoot, shot against them quite often. And frankly, the average cop is a LOUSY shot. Your accuracy in addressing topics is about on a par I imagine with the average cops shooting skills.

              Aslan is not a Tame Lion

              This message is a reply to:
               Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2007 11:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              Newer Topic | Older Topic
              Jump to:


              Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

              ™ Version 4.2
              Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024