| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Weiser says:
=========== 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. ================= Hmmmm.... so supporting people's freedom not to be confronted by religious symbols in public buildings does not, in your eyes, constitute fighting for religious freedom? If not, then what is it? frtzw906 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: =========== 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. ================= Hmmmm.... so supporting people's freedom not to be confronted by religious symbols in public buildings does not, in your eyes, constitute fighting for religious freedom? If not, then what is it? The First Amendment protects the "free exercise of religion," not "freedom from religion." What this means is that the Constitution prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another in its public acts, and it forbids the government from SUPPRESSING the free exercise of religion by any individual or group. This happens to include the exercise of religion on public property, within certain limits. Thus, the government may not forbid a Christian rally on the courthouse lawn, nor may it say only a Christian rally on the courthouse lawn is permitted. It may forbid a Christian rally *inside* the courthouse, however. As to religious symbols on public buildings, it depends on the context of the symbol and the potential effect that the symbol might have on either the acts of government officials towards people who do not subscribe to that religious belief, and to some degree how such a symbol would impair a non-believer's trust in the government's religious neutrality. The SCOTUS is now considering the Ten Commandments plaque issue. I believe they will come down with a ruling that says that while a religious symbol may be placed on public property, generally, whether it is allowed depends on the nature of the property involved. Thus, where a Ten Commandments plaque might be allowable as a part of a public display of historical documents in the context of a neutral public forum like a park or museum, such a display in a courthouse or government office would be disallowed because of the potential for harm to the civil rights of non-believers engaged in conducting public business. The demarcation line would seem to me to be wherever someone engaged in business with the government will be unlikely to avoid exposure to a religious message in, on, or around public buildings where public business is conducted, such as courthouses, city halls, and other such venues. Where the venue is a public one, but there is no business with the government being transacted, such as a public park, it is unlikely that a reasonable person would view such a display as some sort of government mandate or policy, and thus it should be allowed according to the will of the people. I think I'd suggest that a vote be required before any religious displays are permitted on public property, however, so that the display can be justifiably within the public will. As for the ACLU, for example, the ACLU does not defend Christian students who wish to form religious clubs and use school property for their meetings, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that they have a First Amendment right to do so. As I said, the ACLU carefully picks its agenda, and it's universally and without exception a far-left, socialist, secular, anti-religious 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 |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Weiser:
================ The SCOTUS is now considering the Ten Commandments plaque issue. I believe they will come down with a ruling that says that while a religious symbol may be placed on public property, generally, whether it is allowed depends on the nature of the property involved. Thus, where a Ten Commandments plaque might be allowable as a part of a public display of historical documents in the context of a neutral public forum like a park or museum, such a display in a courthouse or government office would be disallowed because of the potential for harm to the civil rights of non-believers engaged in conducting public business. ================ And a very wise decision that would be. Such symbols, in a park, would be appropriate if they served the same function as these same symbols in a museum. frtzw906 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/10/05 8:19 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 3/9/05 9:58 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: Michael commenting on Weiser: ============== Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights. =============== And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation. To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist agenda. They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of town on a rail, at the very least. 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. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
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, 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. However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right of religious students to pray in school, or defense of individual landowners property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government, or the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms, or the rights of the unborn and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their leftist agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent. -- 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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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. 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...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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... 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. I'm guessing you've gotten to know a lot of blind hogs in a way that few can understand. 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. Why would the ACLU go to all the trouble of establishing their organization just 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. Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with whatever the court has to say on an issue. 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. Mm. But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil liberties. 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. If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody would even know they were praying. 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 Who is "our" here? 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. Or it could be that the right wing agenda is all about reducing civil liberties in puruist of a narrow agenda. 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. It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties. Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you might well expect the ACLU to disagree. 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 right-wing agenda of "more guns and more jesus" is a threat to civil liberties and the ACLU is just doing their job taking an objective approach to issues regardless of whether or not Scott Weiser has sent them death threats. 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. You are starting to undersatnd the ACLU. Don't you think Holocaust survivors were mad as hell to see the ACLU defending the right of Nazis to march through their streets? 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. I don't think that's quite their position. 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. Take your finger off the trigger...that's it...relax Scotty...just place the gun on the table...that's it..... 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. They have an agenda to be sure, but it's clearly not leftist-socialist. -- 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 |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
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. Defending civil liberties means that you don't necessarily go along with whatever the court has to say on an issue. It does mean going along with what the Constitution says, however. But that puts them squarely at odds with the Constitution and the religious student's right to freely exercise their religion. It's their job to be at odds with whatever it is that is threatening civil liberties. Except when the civil liberties threatened happen to be ones that support things like religion and private property. 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. If the displays are private, there's obviously no problem, because nobody would even know they were praying. "Private" does not mean "invisible." I can pray out loud on the sidewalk all day long and there's nothing anyone can do about it. 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 Who is "our" here? Each and every citizen of the United States, of course. 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. It's their job to be at odds with anything that threatens civil liberties. Except when the threatened civil liberty is the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, even if a judge rules that it is perfectly fine for Scott Weiser to park a tank on his front lawn and point it at his neighbor's house, you might well expect the ACLU to disagree. Hyperbolic amphigory. -- 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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
