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

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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.

No it doesn't.

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.

Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.

How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.

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.

And that's the place for it. Not in a school where other children are
required to be. There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)

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.

Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.

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.

Nope, that too.

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.

Try to see how it is more than that.

It's a bit like the situation with the gum.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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.

No it doesn't.

If they don't comport with the Constitution, they aren't protecting "civil
liberties."


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.

Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.

How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.

I didn't say they threatened private property, though I suspect they do by
interfering with land transfers (think Wal-Mart) and perhaps by supporting
restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private land found in land use
codes, I said that they did not SUPPORT private property rights. There's not
a chance in hell that the ACLU would, for example, take up my case against
the State of Colorado for the unlawful appropriation of a right of way
across my land by the legislature.

And yet the issue of unlawful eminent domain takings is certainly involved
with "civil rights," since the right to own private property and be
compensated when the state appropriates it, is a fundamental civil right.


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.

And that's the place for it.

Well, the point is that neither you nor the government gets to decide that.

Not in a school where other children are
required to be.

That they are required to be there does not mean that they have a right to
be protected from displays of religious beliefs by other students who choose
to freely exercise their First Amendment rights.

There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)

Hardly.


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.

Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.

If they don't, they are socialist asses.


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.

Nope, that too.

But they absolutely refuse to defend the right to keep and bear arms, which
is a civil liberty. As I said, they are a biased, hard-left group with a
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/12/05 3:52 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
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.

No it doesn't.

If they don't comport with the Constitution, they aren't protecting "civil
liberties."

Nonsense.

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.

Since religion is nothing but an exercise of the imagination, it can't be
threatened. If you mean that the imposition of religious power and influence
threatens civil liberties and needs to be kept in check, that's quite true.

How exactly does the ACLU threaten private property? I'd like to hear some
examples to see where you are coming from on that one.

I didn't say they threatened private property, though I suspect they do by
interfering with land transfers (think Wal-Mart) and perhaps by supporting
restrictions on the use and enjoyment of private land found in land use
codes, I said that they did not SUPPORT private property rights. There's not
a chance in hell that the ACLU would, for example, take up my case against
the State of Colorado for the unlawful appropriation of a right of way
across my land by the legislature.

Perhaps because defending civil liberties doesn't necessarily equate to
defending Scotty Weiser's world view.

And yet the issue of unlawful eminent domain takings is certainly involved
with "civil rights," since the right to own private property and be
compensated when the state appropriates it, is a fundamental civil right.

I'm not sure that Scotty Weiser's right to control his private property
usurps all other rights.

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.

And that's the place for it.

Well, the point is that neither you nor the government gets to decide that.

Who gets to decide?

Not in a school where other children are
required to be.

That they are required to be there does not mean that they have a right to
be protected from displays of religious beliefs by other students who choose
to freely exercise their First Amendment rights.

I disagree.

There, that's one less issue where you have to shriek about
the ACLU :-)

Hardly.

Oh well. Keep on shrieking.

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.

Oh, I don't know that they all share your perspective Scotty.

If they don't, they are socialist asses.

And that's pretty much what your serious mental health issues boil down to.

Anyone who disagrees with Scotty Weiser is a socialist ass.

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.

Nope, that too.

But they absolutely refuse to defend the right to keep and bear arms

Good for them. I've never made a donation to the ACLU, but you are making a
good case for it.

which is a civil liberty

Only if you are nuts.

As I said, they are a biased, hard-left group with a
socialist agenda.

You've done nothing to substantiate your silly claim.