A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut
(perhaps
just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.

Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks
it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
rights or religious freedom.

Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre
things
as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes
that could hardly be termed far-left.

Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march

Thus, I am correct.

Only partly.

Even a blind hog finds a acorn occasionally.


but
you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that
they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group
of
kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist
agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while
actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise
march.

Wow, these are some cold-blooded creeps

Yes, indeed they are.

...deliberately going out of their
way to defend nazis all for the purpose of making it look like they are
interested in civil liberties when really all they are doing is trying to
fool Scott into thinking they are interested in civil liberties when really
then are just pursuing a leftist-socialist agenda.

It's not me they are fooling, but they do manage to pull the wool over the
eyes of the illiterati.


However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right
of religious students to pray in school

That's like asking them to defend the right to fire a gun in school.

Why? In case you missed it, the courts have ruled that students are entitled
to pray in school, just so long as it's not school officials who are leading
the prayers.


Perhaps they believe that a student should have the right to attend school
without being marginalized for being an atheist. You'd have to ask them.

Perhaps. But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. You must learn
to distinguish between a school and its administration leading, engaging in
or fostering prayer by students and the free exercise of religion by
individual students, acting on their own. That other students may be made
uncomfortable by these private displays of religion is not important, as the
Constitution requires them to tolerate such things.


or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government

I'm not sure that civil liberties and property rights are necessarily a good
fit.

In case you missed it, the right to own private property is one of our
preeminent and most jealously guarded civil liberties. That's the problem
with the ACLU, it only considers a "civil liberty" to be something that
forwards their leftist-socialist/collectivist agenda. They are wrong.


the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms

Well, perhaps the concern is the right for other people to be safe from gun
nuts.

Perhaps, but that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the
civil liberty to own a gun. Once again, it's the
collectivist/socialist/leftist agenda at work to the denigration of
individual civil liberties that makes the ACLU dangerous and wrong.


or the rights of the unborn

Perhaps there's some consideration of the rights of the born with regard to
what happens to the unborn.

Perhaps. And yet they see no nuance. Their position seems to be one of
supporting abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy, including the
instant before birth without any consideration for the life of the unborn
child. That's rather less than "some consideration" for the unborn.


and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their
leftist
agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent.

Perhaps because you are confused about the concept of civil liberties, not
sure.

Evidently you are confused about the concept of civil liberties. Civil
liberties embrace ALL of the rights and liberties that individuals enjoy,
not just some sub-set that fits into a liberal-socialist agenda that they
can try to twist into some "collective" civil right. Fact is that there is
no such thing as a "collective" civil right. All civil rights are individual
in nature and applied to individuals. Thus, the infringement of any
individual civil liberty is as bad as the infringement of any other
individual civil liberty. All must be protected with equal vigor. The ACLU
however, doesn't believe in protecting ALL civil liberties, they pick and
choose a select set of civil liberties to defend that happens to forward
their leftist-socialist agenda.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser