Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the beef with the ACLU?
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

                
              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

                
              Hyroglyphx
              Inactive Member


              Message 122 of 199 (384176)
              02-10-2007 12:15 PM
              Reply to: Message 73 by subbie
              02-08-2007 4:10 PM


              Re: The ACLU
              You cited Gitlow, Whitney, and Brandenburg as cases that the ACLU took that "not only defend anti-American terrorism, but they also aide [sic] and abet them."
              You've got the wrong post in your mind. I had stated in so many words that the ACLU defends anti-American causes, like sedition. Jaderis asked me to substantiate that they take on cases of sedition.
              When I mentioned that they aid and abet terrorists, I was thinking of Lynne Stewart in my mind, who unquestionably aided and abetted known terrorists. When I reviewed the case again, I saw that she does not directly work for the ACLU. Nonetheless, the NLG and the ACLU are in cahoots and parallel in judicial philosophies.

              "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 73 by subbie, posted 02-08-2007 4:10 PM subbie has replied

              Replies to this message:
               Message 123 by subbie, posted 02-10-2007 12:36 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              Hyroglyphx
              Inactive Member


              Message 124 of 199 (384208)
              02-10-2007 2:44 PM
              Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
              02-08-2007 4:33 PM


              Re: The ACLU
              quote:
              Evidence, please.
              That these men have been instrumental in programs that undermine American freedom? It's "common knowledge"
              I asked for evidence, not conjecture. The common knowledge is the allegation. Evidence, however, is still pending.
              don't you think that warantless electronic surveillance of Americans guilty of no crimes constitutes an erosion of our civil liberties?
              "After the Oklahoma City bombing, Louis Freeh, head of the FBI, came to President Clinton-- I know because I was there-- and he said, "Look Mr. President, can't we change the rules; can't we get a search warrant just because a guy is a member of a terrorist organization that we no is planning an act of violence, even if we don't when or how?" And Clinton said, "No, no ,we're not going to do that. It violates civil liberties." And he was right. But then Freeh says, "Ok, just let us get the information to protect life, but we won't turn it over to the prosecutor. We won't use that information to prosecute this guy. We'll just use it to stop him from the action." Clinton still said no. So, as a result from that "no," and believe me, it was a big 'N'-'O', when they picked up Zacarias Moussaoui, neither the INS or the FBI could access the computer. The main purpose of the Patriot Act is to dismantle that wall. The fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments are designed to stop prosecution by unfair police tactics. We still have those, it doesn't change them. The point is, the system didn't work and that most people still have no idea what the Patriot Act actually is and what it isn't." -Dick Morris; former Campaign Advisor to President Clinton
              No, you've presented evidence that they defend a certain type of case... That's not bias; that's specialization.
              "Active in lawsuits, legislatures, the media and academia, the ACLU certainly is working to 'defend rights.' The inconsistency of its record, however, raises the question of just whose liberties they are working to preserve. An examination of the ACLU's involvement in and comments about individual rights reveals that it may not be working to defend 'every person in this country.' Becoming a 'card-carrying member of the ACLU' may make you a member of the world's largest organization for hypocrites.
              ...Although the ACLU lobbies Congress and state legislatures, its accomplishments derive chiefly from judges who share the ACLU's view of the Constitution as a 'living document'-more accurately described as the 'Gumby' version. Only a constitution that can be stretched, twisted and tied in knots could support most of the causes advocated by the ACLU."
              But lets look at both sides of the coin, presented by those who respect them and those who denounce them by looking at the varying perspectives.
              I don't see what the NLG, or more specifically, one of it's members, has to do with the ACLU.
              Because they commiserate and collaborate. Those two ideologues are one and the same.
              Where in it does it say how to murder a child?
              Kidnapping and molestation aren't bad enough? Its the teaching of tactics, such as how to kidnap and molest children that NAMbLA should stand trial for in indictment. The murder by Jaynes and Sicari should be on their own heads.
              quote:
              You stubbornly maintaining your convoluted views next insurmountable evidence to the contrary does not constitute winning for you.
              Your declarations of victory don't change the fact that you and your side always lose.
              I don't declare victory or loss because its completely subjective to the viewers mentality. I'm simply questioning what you constitute as winning or loss, especially when all you've offered thus far, and typically, is unfettered rhetoric.
              The point is, if public funds and support are provided to Christian creches, but not to other religious symbology involved in the other myriad holidays that occur at the same time, that's a special privilege for Christianity.
              The plain fact about this nation is that it is predominantly comprised of Christians. For anyone to complain about that makes about as much sense as me going to Israel and throwing a hissy fit over that nation displaying more Menorahs and Star's of David than it does crucifixes. The same could be said about me going to Syria and complaining that more people celebrate Ramadan than they do Christmas.
              Nobody in the United States disallows any one to believe as they do or to celebrate their holidays in the manner fitting to them. And I don't doubt highly that there is a nation more accommodating to those beliefs than Canada, the US, and the UK, who also predominantly celebrate Christian holidays, but respect others faiths. You seeing a pattern here?
              Maybe they should suck it up and stop being a bunch of pansies. Maybe they should go visit Iraq or Syria where Christians are shot inside their homes. That's some real hardship.
              Which makes it too bad when they do it anyway. And it means that, regrettably, an organization I support is justifiably opposed by the ACLU, another organization I support. (It's like when your two best friends break up with each other.)
              Wait, huh? Who are you referring to? The ACLU and who? I deleted your quote of me.
              To the extent that the Scouts benefit from public funds and facilities, they aren't a private organization; they have to follow the rules same as everybody else. And not being discriminatory is a part of that. Look, that's the rule. Change Federal laws if you don't like it.
              You're not understanding what I'm saying. We're at a crux. Because the law states that the government will not interfere with people's religious freedoms and it also says that you can't discriminate against someone over their sexual preference. The reality is that allowing gay men to be a scoutmaster will go against the tenets of a religion, thus discriminating against their beliefs. However, not allowing the the gay man to be a scoutmaster because of his sexual orientation would inherently discriminate against him.
              It seems like a catch-22 to me. No matter what the decision, someone's rights are going to be violated. In this case, either one man or an entire organization.
              how does it prove an anti-Christian agenda for the ACLU to be defending the right of the school to have the championship rescheduled?
              That's just one instance. I've already posted others, like the Mount Soledad war memorial, (a place that I used to bike to when living in San Diego), which is on city property. The ACLU is even trying to bring Donald Rumsfeld in to the mix. Its just ridiculous. Crosses aren't supposed to be on Federal property right? Why don't they start with the desecration of the dead by removing the crosses over all federal cemeteries.
              Links to cases that prove you wrong! Links to situations you completely misrepresented, like the case of the Adventist basketball players. What on Earth does any of that prove, except that you're completely ignorant as to the actual history of the ACLU?
              It shows that they go against Christian ideals a particular ardor. If there is even a little wiggle room for interpretation, they're all over it. They are even trying to remove the Los Angeles city emblem now because in the crest is a cross. Seriously, don't they have anything better to do?

              "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 74 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 4:33 PM crashfrog has replied

              Replies to this message:
               Message 125 by subbie, posted 02-10-2007 2:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 126 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2007 3:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2007 4:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 164 by arachnophilia, posted 02-11-2007 6:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              Hyroglyphx
              Inactive Member


              Message 130 of 199 (384259)
              02-10-2007 5:53 PM
              Reply to: Message 76 by Chiroptera
              02-08-2007 5:46 PM


              Re: The ACLU
              Also, the Founding Fathers had no real idea of what a functioning democratic republic should look like. You should read their own words.
              What makes you think that I haven't. There was a great division concerning the Constitution to the point where partisan publishings clashed between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. I have only read a few Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and quite frankly, both parties have some really good points. Thus far I am moderate in how I judge the value of each. In an Anti-Federalist Paper, the author makes some good points concerning the condition of the Constitution that seem to contain some parallels to my argument some 220 years later. He goes on to say about revising the Constitution before it is implemented:
              "It is agreed, the plan is defective-that some of the powers granted are dangerous-others not well defined-and amendments are necessary why then not amend it? Why not remove the cause of danger, and, possible, even the apprehension of it? The instrument is yet in the hands of the people; it is not signed, sealed, and delivered, and they have power to give it any form they please... all the powers of rhetoric, and arts of description, are employed to paint the condition of this country, in the most hideous an frightful colors... private faith and credit are disregarded, and public credit is prostrate; that the laws and magistrates are condemned and set at naught; that a spirit of licentiousness is rampant, and ready to break over every bound set to it by the government... in short, that we are in a state of the most grievous calamity at home, and that we are contemptible abroad, the scorn of foreign nations, and the ridicule of the world." -Melancton Smith
              It sounds familiar to our current situation. And as much as I love the Constitution and Amendments as robust concepts of justice, perhaps it is far too broad in interpretation. How can we still have such a division were even the highest court in the land can't solidly agree on matters let alone the People? Its quite the predicament. And certain nations have exploited that weakness for its own gain. We are again facing the same dilemma that Mr. Smith relays. We are again in a state of the most grievous calamity at home, and that we are contemptible abroad, the scorn of foreign nations, and the ridicule of the world.
              They were quite aware that the principles they were laying down were based on guess work and compromises between very different visions. They themselves did not really trust the finished product -- in fact, they fully expected the next generations to correct their mistakes.
              What I like about the Constitution and the Amendments was that the Drafters had the forethought to understand that, as you've shared, nations change with time. No nation is immune to that because priorities change for enumerable reasons. But I have to concur a bit with Mr. Smith when he says,
              "But it is contended, adopt it first, and then amend it. I ask, why not amend, and then adopt it? Most certainly the latter mode of proceeding is more consistent with our ideas of prudence in the ordinary concerns of life If men were about entering into a contract respecting their private concerns it would be highly absurd in them to sign and seal an instrument containing stipulations which are contrary to their interests and wishes, under the expectation, that the parties, after its execution, would agree to make alteration agreeable to their desire. They would insist upon the exceptionable clause being altered before they would ratify the contract. And is a compact for the government of ourselves and our posterity of less moment than contract between individuals? Certainly not. But to this reasoning, which at first vie would appear to admit of no reply, a variety of objections are made, and number of reasons urged for adopting the system, and afterwards proposing amendments." -Melancton Smith
              Finally, we are under no obligation to become slaves to the vision of past generations. We, as a society, are free to collectively decide on how we will structure the society in which we live.
              Not if we keep granting the powers of the government to be greater than that of the People. The intent of the government in the early days served a few purposes. That was to protect its people-- i.e. the military. To establish and maintain a postal service-- i.e. USPS. And to institute taxes in order to fund those services for its people-- i.e. the IRS. That was it. The rest was supposed to fall in to the hands of the States. They were supposed to handle every thing else, where the People really mattered. That was the whole purpose of having states. They're all pretty much the same now or days. Before, the States couldn't agree on anything. Which in some respects is bad, such as undue animosity towards one another. But on the other hand it was good because the people got decide for themselves the way they wanted things run democratically.
              I guess an example of how things are beginning to go awry, in my opinion, is the power of the Supreme Court. And this is a bipartisan issue because it has the potential to effect both the left and the right and everyone in between adversely. They have too much power. Why is it that a body of Justices can decide the fate of millions? Why aren't we allowed to vote on important decisions, like Roe v Wade? That shouldn't be up to them. They are there to "interpret" the law, not pass them. The Judicial Branch of the government has always been the smallest with the least amount of influence and power, and with good reason. We should be able to speak through democratic election and have our Representatives representing us. There is a decline with all of this because the government just keeps getting bigger. And even Republicans who have historically wanted a smaller, yet highly efficient government, even they are expanding in to some ridiculous programs that consume tax dollars that could be going to some more worthy causes.
              What say you about all of that?
              Conservatives themselves show very little knowledge and less interest in actual history. The utopia they promote are a historical, and, like all utopias, probably unworkable in real life.
              What Utopia do they promote?
              Is there evidence that the ACLU promotes the "unchecked and unquestioned" acceptance of "leftist ideal", or is this another conspiracy that required the conservatives' magic crystal ball to uncover?
              The evidence is in the cases they choose compared to what they ignore, which is what I've been saying. If you're asking me if I can scry and read minds, no I cannot. Maybe its all justa vast right-wing conspiracy. Speaking of Hilary, I'm curious to know if you're planning on voting for her or another democrat hopeful.

              "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 76 by Chiroptera, posted 02-08-2007 5:46 PM Chiroptera has replied

              Replies to this message:
               Message 131 by Chiroptera, posted 02-10-2007 6:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              Hyroglyphx
              Inactive Member


              Message 133 of 199 (384351)
              02-11-2007 12:44 AM
              Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
              02-09-2007 10:01 AM


              Re: The ACLU
              Some "differing opinions" are flat-out wrong, and inappropriate for a Justice on the Supreme Court. For instance, a justice that believes that the President holds unitary powers above and beyond those specified in the Constitution that descend from the powers traditionally afforded to kings - as Alito and Roberts maintain
              What? Please explain and substantiate how Alito and Roberts want the President to hold unitary powers above and beyond those specified in the Constitution that you liken to a Monarchy. You forget that a President can't even wipe his own ass without two thirds of Congress' approval. And the President has veto powers. Its a checks and balances system so that no entity can become too powerful.
              He was supposed to just get a pass and walk into his seat?
              No, I like the idea of a Senate Judiciary Committee. That's more checks and balances in action. It was their redundant harangue in an obvious effort to trip him up and to either have him make contradictory or careless statements based on hypothetical situations without regard to a plethora of factors. Basically, without actually saying it, they were trying to make Alito share his personal opinion on Roe v Wade in order to make the determination of whether he was going to personally overturn it.
              No, you were asked to defend your assertion that the ACLU defends sedition.
              Crash, come one buddy... Though I don't agree with the ACLU's agenda, I can still recognize that they are nonetheless comprised of some pretty sharp attorneys. No attorney would advocate sedition, or support terrorists outright, or subscribe to anything that was illegal. What they would do, and do very well, is manipulate the existing law so that they can make a person or group seem as if they are going against a law. In the same way, when they are defending a person or a group, they will manipulate the law in their favor setting a precedence or trying to have the court hyperfocus on one specific thing in order to redirect them from the actual situation at hand. Almost all lawyers do this to some extent. Unfortunately, that is the nature of their job. And I have no problem admitting that the ACLU is very, very good at what they do. In fact, they have a 67% win/loss ratio. They win more cases than they lose which obviously is a testimony to how well they debate. And of the cases they win, a tremendous amount of those cases has gone all the way up to the Supreme Court which evidently shows how divided the cases themselves are.
              But just because someone is good at being an intelligent sycophant doesn't make it good, moral, or just.
              I've asked you this several times now, and you refuse to answer. What's "anti-American" about defending someone in a court of law?
              And I've told you, over, and over, and over again that nothing-- as in "no" "thing"-- is wrong about defending people in court. What is wrong, in my estimation, is that they choose cases, intentionally, that pander to the criminal. They often come down on the side of criminals in an attempt to impugn those who don't deserve it. Don't you think that's odd that an extremely large percentage of Americans can recognize this about the ACLU, but you are sort of preening and fawning them every step of the way? I don't think there is any other organization with a more sordid reputation than the ACLU. Don't you think that there might actually be some basis for my concern? Can they do no wrong?
              I can say with all honesty that they have taken on cases that I agree with concerning legitimate civil rights cases. But the majority of the cases they take on are a complete waste of time, as if the friggin emblem of LA were such a travesty or a war memorial with a cross is cause for alarm. They seem more interested in taking on pointless cases than they concern themselves with more urgent and pressing matters.
              Of course, the materials you've presented actually prove something else - they prove the ACLU's contention that our government has a nasty habit of accusing innocent people it doesn't like of committing "anti-American" activities, and then trying to ensure conviction by making those people too unpopular to defend. Thank goodness the ACLU won't be bullied by the government or by the immature... How is it "anti-American" to defend an innocent person against being railroaded by the government? I can't think of anything more American than that.
              Keep going with this, because this is exactly the mentality the ACLU has. They see themselves as crusaders who free the oppressed from the tyranny of the US government, when 9 out of 10 times the government of this nation has a legitimate basis for concern.
              Because if you're old enough to have sex you're old enough to make other decisions about your body.
              A couple of 12 year old kids who are physically capable of having sex are old enough to make decisions about their own bodies they hardly know a thing about? The funny thing about abortion and choice is this: You can't elect to have a hysterectomy without a doctor to legitimize the need, no matter how old you are, which is actually apart of one's body, but you can elect to remove a body inside of your body at your own discretion. I don't understand that. If the "my body, my choice" can apply to abortion, why doesn't extend to actual parts of somebody's body?
              Honestly the idea of needing to get parental consent for an abortion disgusts me. It turns my stomach.
              Abortions disgust me.
              And it's not on-topic in this thread. I can kick your ass all around another thread on the subject, if you wish.
              As terrifying as that prospect is for me, I might just consider it. Write it up and I'll follow you in there.
              Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Jerry Falwell... the list goes on and on.
              Not so fast. The only reason why the ACLU chimed in was because they were questioned on why they hadn't supported him on certain talk shows. By taking cases like this, (which they didn't initially do), allows them to gloat about taking on cases that give them the appearance of bipartisanship. Its a good move on their part.
              Howard Simon, who is the Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, even commented, "For many people, it may seem odd that the ACLU has come to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. But we have always said that the ACLU's real client is the Bill of Rights and we will continue to safeguard the values of equality, fairness and privacy for everyone, regardless of race, economic status or political point of view."
              Why would it be strange if the ACLU didn't have a historical record against conservative ideology?
              I'm sorry, I guess I didn't realize I couldn't take down a cross in my own chapel, of my own volition, without triggering a Constitutional crisis.
              The issue is that the Wren Church, along with the cross, is more than just a religious symbol, its also a historic part of that church that its congregation wants to keep. No one was protesting having inter-faith services, and interestingly enough, no one from another faith complained about the cross. Most people are either happy about the cross or indifferent to it. According to a few articles on the subjects, even the secularists were wondering what this guy's problem was. I think its great that he reaches out to other faiths, however, he has to think about the rest of the congregation, many of whom were at that church before he ever became president.
              I'm not even sure what statement the ACLU issued concerning this case. Then again, they also take a lot of strange cases on. For instance, a teacher was fired because he went on public access television to display his hobby, which is painting. What makes him unique is that he likes to paint using his butt cheeks and scrotum. As bizarre as it is, I agree with the ACLU that he shouldn't have been fired over it, especially since he made an effort to disguise himself.
              Of course, that's exactly the position of conservatives - Christianity is so special that it's only equal to other religions when it's set above them; and treating Christianity the same as any other religion is unfair and infringes on its rights. You've really got a messed-up worldview, NJ.
              You've invented this all in your mind. I have never said that any religion should be more esteemed than another. What I have a problem with is this guy taking it upon himself to try and "accommodate" people of other faiths who never asked to be accommodated to begin with, even at the risk of undermining the entire congregation. Its a church! You know, if I went to an inter-faith service at a Mosque or a Temple and the Imam or Rabbi denied his own congregation in an attempt to make me feel more welcome, but everyone was protesting, I'd be pissed at that Imam or Rabbi too. Its a mosque for crying out loud! No surprise that the crescent moon is going to be displayed. Likewise, it shouldn't be a surprise that churches have crosses in them.

              "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 91 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 10:01 AM crashfrog has replied

              Replies to this message:
               Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2007 11:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 136 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 11:27 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 143 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-11-2007 12:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 150 by docpotato, posted 02-11-2007 1:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 153 by subbie, posted 02-11-2007 1:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 157 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 3:03 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 179 by Jaderis, posted 02-12-2007 9:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 180 by nator, posted 02-13-2007 8:50 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              Hyroglyphx
              Inactive Member


              Message 159 of 199 (384447)
              02-11-2007 4:04 PM
              Reply to: Message 121 by arachnophilia
              02-10-2007 3:06 AM


              Re: What is wrong with Communism?
              this "lie" we've bought into is the sum of the 200 year history of the supreme court of the united states.
              Arach, the lie I was referring to is any one who extends the argument beyond its merits. The Separation of Church and State means that no government entity will preference a religion over another. It doesn't mean that individuals that happen to work for the government aren't allowed to believe whatever they do or that they couldn't read the Qur'an or the Bible on their lunch break. It means that the government will not endorse a religion in its official capacity. Right on! That's the way it should be.
              However, the other portion stipulates that no one's religious freedoms will be hindered by an outside agency, such as the government. Special interest groups have taken a very narrow interpretation of it to mean that the nowhere in the public square can anyone so much as mention the name of Jesus or display a crucifix in their cubicle or pray at school if they so desire. In this way, special interest groups are preferring one portion of it over the other. But it says that government won't show preferential treatment to any religion, nor will it abridge the freedoms of those want to practice religion.
              your child goes to school, according to the law. he attends a public school, which recieves state funding. in his science class, he is taught a single religious idea of creation -- say the hindu one, just to mix things up -- and no others. is this acceptable under the constitution, which says "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion?"
              Insofar that it is teaching, and by extension respecting a religion, then no it isn't Constitutional.
              teaching one religion, and only one religion, as truth has become equivalent to indoctrination: establishing that as the official governmental religion in the children's minds. and thus, is against the intention and modern readings of the first amendment.
              I'm not sure why you are mentioning all this though. Presumably you are making allusions about creationism being taught in public school. I certainly agree that it is unconstitutional.
              quote:
              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.
              they are state-run, actually. it's the states that are ultimately overseen by the feds. ...but welcome to the difference between the federal system, and confederation. it could be argued that the constitution supports either, but we hashed that one out a long time ago. and NOT in a court room.
              Actually, this jousting was going on from the beginning which the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers illustrate. We had one group who wanted the Federal Government to be the preeminent overseer of all the states that consolidate it under one unification. We had the other group that wanted the Federal government to be the ultimate overseer of each individual state, however, there was an emphasis placed on the states individualistic rights.
              apparently, education is dangerous to some religions. that is not the government's fault. stating historical or scientific facts is not establishment, even if some religions disagree with those facts.
              Religion has nothing to do with this argument, nor does it have to do with school itself. The argument I made was that Article 10 says that any standard not specifically cased must be left up to the states to decide for themselves. There was no public institutions at that time. I am saying that, technically speaking, the Federal government should not have any entitlements to public schools, nor is it supposed to guide the curriculum. And before you ask, no, I'm not suggesting that we abandon the public school system. I only said it to show that the ACLU could make an enormous case against the government if they wanted to instead of worrying about a cross in on a memorial.
              i'm not sure of the veracity of your quotes, but the biases of the founders really should have no bearing on the status of actual public education TODAY, under the law.
              Law is law, and fair is fair according to the ACLU.
              as i'm sure you're aware, canada's medical system is socialized. a little bit of socialism, in the right place, strongly moderated by democracy is not neccessarily a bad thing. socialism is an economic theory, not a political one. it is not entirely incompatible with representational democracy.
              I agree that it is not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, socialism was invented to escape the pitfalls of the restriction of freedom that communism was so apt to, while still maintaining a "commune" ideal, but still supporting a free trade market compatible with capitalism. Its supposed to be the best of both worlds.
              constitutional republics can have any range of religious beliefs associated with them. our government is secular because they do not have the right to establish an official religion.
              I see it as Roman in approach, where they didn't really define any particular religion, prior to Constantine of course, and they also were real big on not disrespecting any one's religion, save Nero, who used to be infatuated with killing early Christians.
              none of that has anything to do with socialism. fascism, maybe, but you are playing a dangerous game of finger-pointing and false dichotomies. in any case, socialism is an economic idea, not a political one.
              I agree that it is supposed to be an economic idea.... But then again, so was communism. At the heart of socialism and communism is a wonderful ideal. I don't think anyone actually contends with that. However, both are in denial about human nature. It also demonizes a laissez faire approach to economics which invents an Us vs Them dichotomy. That's where it has historically failed.
              he sought to destroy religion because he saw religion being used as a tool to manipulate people into doing the government's bidding. tactics i'm sure he would see in today's neo-cons. by his government, religion was simply replaced with nationalism. same function, different mask.
              Did you know that both Marx and Stalin were seminary students before they rejected their faith and embraced communism? Its funny that they felt religion was a tool for manipulation, which it certainly can be, but they completely overlook their own tools of manipulation.
              Also, the term "Neo-Con" is used inappropriately. A neo-con is not a new or extreme form of conservativism. In its pejorative use, its meant to be used as an invective. But in reality, the term neo-con was given to defectors of the left to the right. A prime example is David Horowitz. He used to be a communist but left the Left after a series of events. The straw that broke the camel's back for him was the murder of his assistant by Black Panthers and people of his ilk turning a blind eye or even condoning it.
              but religion itself is not incompatible with true communism.
              Life is incompatible with communism.
              now, i haven't read my copy of the communist manifesto in a while, but i certainly don't remember those. in fact, any of those statements regarding government are quite... strange when applied to communism, which by definition has no government.
              You may be confusing the eight rules for a communist revolution with the ten tenets of communism.
              quote:
              Under Mao-Tse Tung, China from 1935 to 1949 exterminated 20 million of his own people.
              fascist
              Mao Tse Tung was a communist, not a fascist. Stalin was a communist, not a fascist.
              nazi - national socialist = fascist.
              The Nazi party was certainly fascist, yes.
              i'm not sure i agree with them here, as i parse the second amendment a little differently. it says:
              quote:
              "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
              this does not say that all firearms have to be in a well regulated militia. there are two groups being described, the militias, and the people as a whole. because, it says, the rights of the smaller group (militia) are so neccessary, the rights of the larger group (the people) must be maintained. the idea being that we can form our own army, if need be, not that we have to be in one to own guns. the key word, i think, is "free" and that should clue us into our own government as a potential enemy, as seen by the founding fathers. they had, afterall, just won an armed revolution against their government.
              Oh, I absolutely agree. The Framers made it so that if ever the government went awry, that the People were granted the ability to defend themselves against the tyranny of the State. Some fringe groups, particularly white identity and anti-American groups have taken this to the extreme. They have taken it upon themselves to separate from the modality of American society and view the government as dictators who need to be abolished. I think the United States is in no immediate danger of this, but it is good that such a concession is on the books.
              but there might be problems with this, of course. you can make a decent argument for balancing this with public safety, order, etc, which is evidently how we feel about this issue as a society. we may not like gun control laws, but we also don't like when a madman drives a tank down our street. this is another instance where the views have been revised a little with time, only in the other direction. it was a little different when all anyone had was ball and powder muskets and rifles.
              There are extremes on both sides. On the extreme left, we have Michael Moore who wants to have Americans loose their right to defend life, limb, and property. Apparently he is incapable of understanding that the bad guys, who defend against in the first place, don't play by the rules. The bad guy will always find a way to arm himself. Should we not have the right and the ability to defend ourselves?
              At the other opposite end of the spectrum, we have extreme views where there should be no restrictions or gun laws, bringing us back to the wild west. Arming every single citizen is not the idea. There needs to be moderation. And it really should be a privilege of upstanding citizens to own guns. I guess I'm somewhere in the middle with gun control.

              "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 121 by arachnophilia, posted 02-10-2007 3:06 AM arachnophilia has replied

              Replies to this message:
               Message 160 by subbie, posted 02-11-2007 4:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 161 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 4:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 166 by arachnophilia, posted 02-11-2007 7:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

                
              Hyroglyphx
              Inactive Member


              Message 165 of 199 (384488)
              02-11-2007 7:15 PM
              Reply to: Message 14 by petrophysics1
              02-07-2007 9:43 AM


              To summarize
              So the beef is here, you and the ACLU think that:
              "an establishment of religion" = "government endorsement of religion"
              This is simply untrue and was not the origional intent of the Constitution. You and I and the ACLU all know that clause was inserted to prevent the establishment of a Federal( US) church. Let's stop pretending otherwise.
              I am not the one trying to change the meaning of this clause, but you and the ACLU appear to be doing just that. Some reason I should blindly accept your new interpretation of this clause?
              BTW, that clause did not prevent individual states from having State Churches. Massachusetts had a State Church (Congregationalists) until 1830 as I recall, supported by tax dollars. It was never declared unconstitutional, but the law was changed.
              Exhibition Overview - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)
              Read all of the above Library Of Congress exhibit, then come back and support "the ACLU definitely fights against government endorsement of religion (whether it is tacit or overt)" from a Founding Father's/historical perspective in regards to what the Constitution actually states.
              This is the extent of my argument, summarized very poignantly by Petro. I'm sorry that I didn't see this sooner. This is exactly how I feel about the issue.

              "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 14 by petrophysics1, posted 02-07-2007 9:43 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

              Replies to this message:
               Message 167 by docpotato, posted 02-11-2007 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 168 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 7:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
               Message 169 by subbie, posted 02-11-2007 8:12 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