Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 136 of 199 (384384)
02-11-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 12:44 AM


Re: The ACLU
quote:
Abortions disgust me.
And this pretty much sums up why conservative extremists hate the ACLU. Fundamentalists see the world in black-and-white. There are no "maybes" or even uncertainties, and there certainly cannot be anything like a "difference of opinion". And so any challenge to any of their tenets becomes "evil", and any challenger the "enemy".

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 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 12:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2007 11:37 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 137 of 199 (384386)
02-11-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Chiroptera
02-11-2007 11:27 AM


Re: The ACLU
Fundamentalists see the world in black-and-white. There are no "maybes" or even uncertainties, and there certainly cannot be anything like a "difference of opinion".
Eh. You could style the beliefs of many liberals that way if you wanted, too. For instance, myself. I can't think of anything more abhorrent than the idea that a 14-year-old rape victim would be forced to go to her rapist for permission to expunge the hideous, incestuous aberration growing within her, and I can't see any room for a "difference of opinion" on that. Making a girl do that is unconscionable, and it outweighs whatever social benefit is supposed to stem from parental consent laws in general.
(What social benefit is supposed to stem from parental consent laws, anyway? More 14-year-olds raising children they didn't want in the first place, just because their parents told them to? How on Earth is it a parent's decision whether or not a child should become a parent themselves?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 11:27 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 12:05 PM crashfrog has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 138 of 199 (384393)
02-11-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by subbie
02-10-2007 7:28 PM


Re: Our Founding Fathers
if you get any response from him on that it will be that it wasn't a legitimate government document, but a personal letter. this however is a real government document.
Treaty of Tripoli
Annals of Congress, 5th Congress
Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.
Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.
Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.
Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.
Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.
Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.
Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.
Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.
Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.
Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.
Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211” corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by
JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.
Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211”corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by
HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,
And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,
JOEL BARLOW.
emphasis mine.
now, in case i'm gonna catch shit about it being just a treaty. treaties are arrangements under international law that are negotiated by the president and ratified by congress. that whole ratification thing is the clincher.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by subbie, posted 02-10-2007 7:28 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by jar, posted 02-11-2007 12:02 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 139 of 199 (384396)
02-11-2007 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by macaroniandcheese
02-11-2007 11:57 AM


On Treaties
Treaties stand equal with the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-11-2007 11:57 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 12:08 PM jar has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 199 (384398)
02-11-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
02-11-2007 11:37 AM


Re: The ACLU
quote:
You could style the beliefs of many liberals that way if you wanted, too.
Sure. That's why I used the word fundamentalist. Although I am speaking in particular about conservative fundamentalists, I think that my sentence is a pretty good description of a fundamentalist in general: someone who believes that they are absolutely right, that no other belief is legitimate, and that everyone else absolutely must live according to their beliefs.
You may or may not be a fundamentalist, but I should probably clarify that I wouldn't call someone a fundamentalist based on an uncompromising stand on a single issue. I was thinking of "fundamentalism" as describing a much larger system of beliefs.

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 137 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2007 11:37 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2007 12:11 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 199 (384399)
02-11-2007 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by jar
02-11-2007 12:02 PM


Re: On Treaties
Actually, they don't. They merely stand equal to regular laws. Congress can pass a law that contradicts a previously ratified treaty or simply abrogate a treaty like they can any other law.
The clause in the Constitution that you are thinking of simply states that the US Constitution, treaties, and regular federal law take precedence over any state law.
Added by edit:
Rereading your post, I think now that it's possible I misread your intent. If so, I apologize.
Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

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 139 by jar, posted 02-11-2007 12:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by jar, posted 02-11-2007 12:16 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1485 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 142 of 199 (384403)
02-11-2007 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Chiroptera
02-11-2007 12:05 PM


Re: The ACLU
I think that my sentence is a pretty good description of a fundamentalist in general: someone who believes that they are absolutely right, that no other belief is legitimate, and that everyone else absolutely must live according to their beliefs.
Ok, but I am somebody that believes that everybody else absolutely must live according my my belief - and my belief is that people must live according to their own beliefs.
So if we're lumping everybody together who doesn't see room for compromise, I find myself in the ridiculous position of having my adamant position that people be free lumped in with people who believe that a 2000-year-old book is going to tell you how to live, whether you like it or not.
Which is why I find your construction somewhat ridiculous. No compromise can be possible between the position that prizes individual self-determination and the position that determines for everybody else what is best. Recognizing that isn't an act of fundamentalism; it's an act of sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 12:05 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 12:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 143 of 199 (384404)
02-11-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 12:44 AM


Re: The ACLU
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?
if they know nothing about their bodies, it is the fault of their parents who should be instructing them on how their bodies work before they are presented with this situation. a girl should know about the functions of her uterus before she begins to menstruate.
You can't elect to have a hysterectomy without a doctor to legitimize the need
i call bullshit. also, a woman can be sterilized at will at any time.
not that you can have a safe abortion without a doctor legitimizing the need...
Abortions disgust me.
the idea of nasty little parasites growing in my body disgusts me.
the idea that parents refuse to educate their children about the consequesnces of behavior because they think it will somehow prevent them from participating in that behavior disgusts me.
the idea that so many people oppose sexual health education because it might encourage sex and then get all upset when reduced condom use leads to increased abortion numbers disgusts me.
the idea that som many men refuse to take responsibility for their semen because "birth control is a woman's problem" and then vote against abortion rights disgusts me.
the idea that women continue to have sex with men who are irresponsible disgusts me.
the idea that our government keeps sending children off to war disgusts me.
the idea that people in this, the richest nation in the world, are starving disgusts me.
the idea that the republican party is supported by working class people who haven't seemed to figure out that the "trickle down" economics trickles down into the pockets of ceos disgusts me.
the idea that my president has lied to me on innumerable occasions disgusts me.
the idea that i have a sinus infection disgusts me.
abortion? that's just tasty, tasty murder.
Likewise, it shouldn't be a surprise that churches have crosses in them.
i think displaying a cross treads dangerously on idolatry.
i don't think churches should have them.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 12:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 199 (384405)
02-11-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by crashfrog
02-11-2007 12:11 PM


Re: The ACLU
Whatever.

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 142 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2007 12:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 145 of 199 (384406)
02-11-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Chiroptera
02-11-2007 12:08 PM


Re: On Treaties
The clause in the Constitution that you are thinking of simply states that the US Constitution, treaties, and regular federal law take precedence over any state law.
Agreed. That is pretty much what I said. Treaties and the Constitution stand at the same level. Laws can be abrogated as can treaties and the Constitution can be amended.
As they stand though they are the Law of the Land.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Chiroptera, posted 02-11-2007 12:08 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-11-2007 12:21 PM jar has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 146 of 199 (384407)
02-11-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by arachnophilia
02-11-2007 12:56 AM


Re: The ACLU
precisely. don't forget. when they wrote the constitution, they were committing treason. they were assigned to amend the articles of confederation. they did not. they wrote a whole new government and we had a very small little coup. it's really interesting when you think about it in real terms. we were founded on revolution and coup, on dissent and sedition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by arachnophilia, posted 02-11-2007 12:56 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 147 of 199 (384408)
02-11-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by jar
02-11-2007 12:16 PM


Re: On Treaties
precisely.
we have early, overarching federal law that states that this nation was in no way founded on christianity or christian principles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by jar, posted 02-11-2007 12:16 PM jar has not replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5066 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 148 of 199 (384411)
02-11-2007 12:59 PM


Summing up...
So, thus far I've learned:
The ACLU seems to have a pretty rigorous definition of what they stand for as an organization and take legal cases based on that definition regardless of how their members might feel about the parties they're defending (Rush Limbaugh, Christian schools, NAMBLA, etc.) They appear to have very little bias in who they take on.
Also: Nemesis doesn't read his links thoroughly.
So what is the beef with the ACLU?

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by subbie, posted 02-11-2007 1:03 PM docpotato has replied
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2007 1:16 PM docpotato has not replied
 Message 163 by Quetzal, posted 02-11-2007 6:29 PM docpotato has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1273 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 149 of 199 (384413)
02-11-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by docpotato
02-11-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Summing up...
I was thinking about doing a summation of this thread myself, but you beat me to it.
As far as I can tell, nj's beef seems to be that he doesn't like the message of some of the groups that the ACLU defends. Can anyone get a better sense of it than that?

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 148 by docpotato, posted 02-11-2007 12:59 PM docpotato has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by docpotato, posted 02-11-2007 1:55 PM subbie has replied

  
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5066 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 150 of 199 (384415)
02-11-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Hyroglyphx
02-11-2007 12:44 AM


Re: The ACLU
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?
An extremely large percentage of Americans once thought that Saddam was involved in 9-11. Oh, yeah, and an extremely large percentage of Americans are for abortions on demand!
So please... as a favor to the world, never use this kind-of reasoning for anything ever again.
I don't think there is any other organization with a more sordid reputation than the ACLU.
NAMBLA? Oh no, wait! What about The US Government! By your reasoning, because a large portion of the population believes the US Goverment is corrupt enough to falsely imprison and/or kill people for merely espousing their beliefs there is a REASON for the ACLU to exist and do exactly what they're doing since... you know... that large of a percentage of people being so suspicious of the government means that there's reason to be suspicious... or some such nonsense.
I think now it is time for you to infinitely regress.
Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-11-2007 12:44 AM 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