Re: Government churches should be constitutionally rabid

Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [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

Thanks for proving my point.

The ACLU believes that the point of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure
that the states had some capacity to "alter or abolish" the central
government. They are probably right about that. So, what do they do?
Do they defend this "civil right."

No.

Instead they treat it as if it is obsolete and silly:

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a
collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to
maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the
central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat
anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful
than handguns or hunting rifles."

-from the site you provided.

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

They sure don't take the same approach they do to the 2nd amendment,
where they say restrictions on the ownership of firearms is not a
violation of civil rights, while restrictions on abortion are.

Hypocrisy.

> >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.

Thank you for admitting that the ACLU could care less about the intent
of the framers.

> 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.

Government regulation of speech has been upheld by every supreme court
since the famous 1919 "fire in the moviehouse" decision of Oliver
Wendell Holmes.

Would you want to argue that the logic of the 1st amendment protects
"fire in the moviehouse"?

> >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.

Again, they run counter to the founders, who wanted religious
expression on the great seal, on currency, in courts, etc., and who
allowed it in the Capitol building, in executive proclamations, in the
Congress, and in the military.

> >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.

Precisely. Heck with the intent of the writers. We can make the
Constitution say whatever we want. The words "congress shall make no
law" can mean "the sky is blue" if we want it to.

> Again, it doesn't matter
> what the founders meant at this point. 

Never seems to for you and the ACLU, does it.

What's interesting is that Allison takes so much effort to prove that
his views are in step with the founders. You need to have a talk with
him.

> Capital punishment has become
> cruel and unusual

Oh, it WASN'T so in 1795?

> in the way we apply it, not to mention quite
> arbitrary.

We randomly select people to be executed?

> >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.

It depends what kind of speech. The ACLU wishes to support the
dissemination of Atheist literature in school systems, while they
utterly oppose the distribution of the Bible by the Gideons in school
systems.

The hypocrisy and the atheist agenda are blatant. They don't want free
exercise of religion. They want free exercise of Atheism only.

> >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.

It takes two to tango.

The ACLU is in bed with them, whoever initiated the affair.

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

Their favorite "but I have a friend who is a negro" apologetic.

It doesn't wash.

If you wish to say that the ACLU engages in the same cooperation with
the KKK as they do with the NEA, you are at least as brainless as
Carol.

> >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.

I suppose it depends on one's own biases. But I appreciate your
honesty in admitting that they are not agenda-less.

Searle