Re: Government churches should be constitutionally rabid

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote:
>Carol Lee Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> On 22 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
>> > Carol Lee Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > > So what if they have ACLU associations?  Many people have ACLU
>> > > associations.
>>  
>> > The ACLU is about as neutral an organization as the 700 Club, and
>> > Buckeye regularly condemns anyone with associations with the 700 club
>> > on the grounds that there is an agenda.
>> 
>> What is nefarious about defending civil rights?
>> 
>> > The ACLU has a clear agenda.
>> 
>> What would that be?  Is it nefarious?
>
>Carol, if you have your head buried so far in the sand that you're not
>even willing to admit that the ACLU has a left-wing liberal agenda
>that is apparent, admitted, and commonly known, then all I can say is
>you are not a very informed reader of day-to-day news.
>
>If the ACLU was truly about championing the Bill of Rights, they
>wouldn't entirely act as if the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist.

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

>They wouldn't act as if having an abortion is every woman's duty.

They don't.

>They wouldn't act as if protection of child pornography is what
>Madison had in mind when he formulated the first amendment.

It doesn't matter what he had in mind.  They merely apply the logic
they used above for the second amendment to the first:

> But as soon as we allow governmental regulation
> of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection.
> Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the
> government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what
> constitutes a reasonable restriction. 

Government regulation of speech is counter to the constitution;
therefore they fight it.

>They wouldn't act as if the founders wanted to remove any and all
>religious expression from the public square.

They don't.  They want it removed from the government sponsored
portion of the public square.

>They wouldn't act as if the founders who wrote the eighth amendment,
>who also regularly supported hangings, really meant that all citizens
>should be protected against capital punishment.

They don't say that the founder meant that.  Again, it doesn't matter
what the founders meant at this point.  Capital punishment has become
cruel and unusual in the way we apply it, not to mention quite
arbitrary.

>They wouldn't be so interested in limiting the free speech of those
>who disagree with their agenda.

I've seen no sign that they are interested in limiting free speech in
any way.

>They wouldn't align themselves so faithfully in step with other
>organizations with political agendas: the NEA, the Democratic National
>Committee, American Atheists, etc.

Rather I think those other organizations align themselves faithfully
with the ACLU.

ACLU also supported the KKK holding public rallies, hardly an
alignment with a liberal group.

>If you want to go ahead and assert that the ACLU is an objective,
>neutral, non-political, unbiased organization, go ahead and parade
>your brainlessness.

Of course they are political and non-neutral, when it comes to their
issues.  Their agenda is public and rather obvious.  But it is hardly
nefarious.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org