Okay, I have a question

[Larry Gude]

Oh look boys...

...mommy is her to spoil our fun!

Ok, Vrai dear, who needs more support, the female walking down the street wearing fishnet and high heels or the 50 construction workers telling one another how bad she wants it?

Did she lose a bet? Is she a hooker? Is she just some dumb over developed 16 year old with shitty parents?

When we confront, publicly, that yes indeed, she may not have chosen the best dress for her own self interest, we all may learn a lesson, BUT we also learn that it does not give the guys the right to presume she wants to be part of a gang bang.

When the Klan is isolated in some barn or field spewing venom and buring crosses, it's a self congratualting, festering mess that buries the ability to be self critical.

When we see History Channel film of them on the front steps of city hall we now see a bunch of hate filled, insecure buffoons whose lives are so miserable that the only way up is stomping on someone else. Some punk who was gonna join now has second thoughts. It's no longer about hanging with the klan because they're angry and right and cool but maybe choosing NOT hanging with the klan because they're a bunch of very un-cool pshyco clowns who would kill you to if the moon is not just so.

Sunshine removes mystery. In a BIG way supporting Skin heads, the Klan or any other group of quacks parading in public shows more about what is wrong with them than what they claim to be right about.

Daddy might be the mayor of the town and go to secret meetings at night to help scare blacks from voting.

He might not be a member if he's gotta spout non sense in the light of day.

While it might be uncomfortable dealing with self proclaimed Nazi's marching through your neighborhood this year, it's nothing compared to the discomfort the Nazi wannabes are gonna feel when they see themselves on the news at 11 actually arguing, with twisted faces and spittle running down their chins that Jews control the world because, uh, Adolph Hitler, uh, said so.

Maybe no march next year due to lack of interest or shortage of quacks?

Courtesy of the ACLU

 

[Larry Gude]

OK Bruz...

I think that their getting involved with foreign detainees is going to get them into more hot water as they are again trying to interpret rights rather than dealing with properly defined rights like freedom of speech and assembly

I think you're probably correct impression wise but the ACLU never took on members who were worried about how the public might initially see them. It's all about fighting the good fight for the noble cause.

I think they're getting into the detainees thing because the government (THE source of abusable power) is playing so many games with these guys. Calling them combatants. Or not. Or spies or as yet to be named perpetrators.

To me, the feds are clearly trying to play it safe and treat these guys as enemies with NO rights because the short term stakes are so high. The ACLU is saying 'Hey, make up your mind! They did something wrong or not! The US, MY country, does not treat ANYONE as though they have NO rights. We are the good guys and must aspire to a higher standard. We cannot become that which we despise."

As far as religion, again you're right as far as public impression but that's because so many of us grew up with the Bible and the Cross and the 10 Commandments. They are not threatening to us because it's so much a part of our lives. The ACLU says 'Hey, it's not fair for an American atheist or a Muslim American to have to confront at a court house, a place of supposeded impartial and fair judgment, symbols that, to them, might provoke in them the same reaction that a Swastika might
provoke in you and I."

 

[Bruzilla]

'Hey, it's not fair for an American atheist or a Muslim American to have to confront at a court house, a place of supposeded impartial and fair judgment, symbols that, to them, might provoke in them the same reaction that a Swastika might provoke in you and I."

This is the problem Larry. No where in the US Constitution is there a call for fairness. The Founding Fathers weren't interested in being fair, they wanted a rule by majority, but with an eye towards protecting individual rights of Americans from the government. These guys weren't stupid, and I'm sure that if they wanted to have a strict seperation of church and state they would have had the duty scribe write it in. They wanted no government created religion, i.e., no Church of the United States that could be controlled by the government as with the Church of England. In order to try to perpetuate a myth of "fairness" to all religions, you have to ignore the intent of the Founding Fathers, and there are more than a few people who can read what that intent was... thus the disharmony with the ACLU over this issue. The US was meant to be a Christian country with no regard for what Muslims or Satanists thought about it.

This is far different from a defined freedom of speech or assembly. The Founding Fathers wanted there to be avenues for dissent in order to keep the government honest. If Nazis, Communists, or the Klan wants to have rallies, they can. I have no problem with that as they are guaranteed that right. While I find NAMBLA disgusting, I supported their fight in 1991 to meet at public libararies as they have the same rights to assembly as anyone else. Now if you can find me a defined right to religious fairness, I (and I'm sure millions of others) would support the ACLU's quest just as we support their efforts to protect our other freedoms. Likewise, if you could show us where it says that the rights and freedoms of enemy combatants are protected by the Constitution or Bill of Rights, we would fall in line with that one two.

The real bottom line is that in this modern age, there are few ways for the ACLU to justify its existance, and least at it's current operating level. If they are to stay relevent, and keep their funding coming, they need to generate some new boogiemen. And every time they try to find boogeymen where there are none, and most Americans can see there are none, the ACLU is going to end up on the wrong side of the populace.

 

[FromTexas]

When did we get the right to avoid things we find distasteful?

As to BJU and BSA if they are 501(C3) organizations they are bound to the laws concerning discrimination to maintain that exempt status. If they give up the exemption and become truly private organizations then they should be able to do as they see fit.

Actually, non-profit organizations have a greater right to discriminate than do profit organizations.

And, the Supreme Court upheld the BSA's right to discriminate against homosexuals... btw. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0530_0640_ZS.html

 

[Tonio]

The US was meant to be a Christian country with no regard for what Muslims or Satanists thought about it.

I strongly disagree. I see "respecting an establishment of religion" as meaning that Congress must be neutral among competing religious doctrines. No endorsement of one religion as the official or even unofficial state religion.

Not because it isn't "fair" to endorse a religion, but because, in my view, respecting an establishment of religion is against the principle of democracy. Democracy involves compromises and balances between majority rule and minority rights, which is what Larry was talking about. Religious doctrine deals in absolutes, which treat compromises as giving into evil. The two concepts are fundamentally incompatible.

Also, the principle of "the people rule" in democracy is inherently humanist. While I think many of the concepts of Christianity go better with democracy than Islam, I also believe that both religions (as well as Judaism) are anti-humanist. They seem to presume that humans aren't capable of governing themselves.

 

[vraiblonde]

When the Klan is isolated in some barn or field spewing venom and buring crosses, it's a self congratualting, festering mess that buries the ability to be self critical.

That actually made me shriek with laughter

Yes, Larry punkin, I'm positive that the KKK only marches and carries on in public so that people will see how reprehensible they are and refuse to take up their cause.



We both know damn well why they do it. It's the same reason that there's a perfectly good private forum on here, yet people still want to post inappropriate material in the open: Because they not only want to "get their message out", but they want to have a much larger audience than they would get by simple invitation.

Or "ramming it down our throats", to use the fashionable term.

Maybe no march next year due to lack of interest or shortage of quacks?

Yeah, that'll happen - a shortage of quacks!

 

[vraiblonde]

When did we get the right to avoid things we find distasteful?

That is officially the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. Or anyone say, for that matter.

"When did we get the right to avoid things that we find distasteful?"

I was completely unaware that we DIDN'T have the right to avoid things we find distasteful. Thank you for enlightening me, Herr Kommandant.

 

[Ken King]

That is officially the dumbest thing I've ever heard you say. Or anyone say, for that matter.

"When did we get the right to avoid things that we find distasteful?"

I was completely unaware that we DIDN'T have the right to avoid things we find distasteful. Thank you for enlightening me, Herr Kommandant.

You don't read your own posts then.

America isn't that little domain where only those sharing your ideas can communicate them in public? This is one of the reasons why the ACLU exists to protect the right that people have to speak out upon a subject. We demanded the right to speak out as an inherent freedom and as such we must endure others exercising that same exact right even though what they say is something we vehemently disagree with.

 

[vraiblonde]

This is one of the reasons why the ACLU exists to protect the right that people have to speak out upon a subject.

Just because someone has a right to speak out on a subject, does that mean they also have the right to force others to hear their message?

Find that in the Constitution for me, please - musta missed that episode of Schoolhouse Rock.

 

[Ken King]

Just because someone has a right to speak out on a subject, does that mean they also have the right to force others to hear their message?

Find that in the Constitution for me, please - musta missed that episode of Schoolhouse Rock.

Can you ever force anyone to "hear" the message?

The fact that one might hear a message they don't like is a symptom of freedom, enjoy it.

 

[vraiblonde]

Can you ever force anyone to "hear" the message?

Omm...dur. How about when they rally outside your home or office? Or tie up traffic with their silly marches and protests? I guess you could always quit your job and evacuate your house, but it seems simpler to just make these organizations hold their crap in such a venue as to not disturb those who aren't interested in listening to their bs.

Take a quick gander at your Constitution, pally-o. The First Amendment just says that Congress shall make no law that prohibits your free speech, nor can they prevent you from peaceably assembling. It doesn't say you have the right to speak or assemble anywhere you want to.

 

[kingvjack]

Omm...dur. How about when they rally outside your home or office? Or tie up traffic with their silly marches and protests? I guess you could always quit your job and evacuate your house, but it seems simpler to just make these organizations hold their crap in such a venue as to not disturb those who aren't interested in listening to their bs.

Take a quick gander at your Constitution, pally-o. The First Amendment just says that Congress shall make no law that prohibits your free speech, nor can they prevent you from peaceably assembling. It doesn't say you have the right to speak or assemble anywhere you want to.

Yeah, punk

 

[Ken King]

Omm...dur. How about when they rally outside your home or office? Or tie up traffic with their silly marches and protests? I guess you could always quit your job and evacuate your house, but it seems simpler to just make these organizations hold their crap in such a venue as to not disturb those who aren't interested in listening to their bs.

Take a quick gander at your Constitution, pally-o. The First Amendment just says that Congress shall make no law that prohibits your free speech, nor can they prevent you from peaceably assembling. It doesn't say you have the right to speak or assemble anywhere you want to.

"abridging the freedom of speech" and "to peaceably assemble".

Who says they are doing it where ever they want? These folk (the protestors) obtain permits. They have Government approval to have their rally/protest. Those that don't get the permits, trespass, or cause harm are breaking laws along the way and suffer the consequence for breaching the peace.

 

[Ken King]

Yeah, punk

Crawl back into your bottle dickweed!

 

[kingvjack]

Crawl back into your bottle dickweed!

 

[Bruzilla]

I strongly disagree. I see "respecting an establishment of religion" as meaning that Congress must be neutral among competing religious doctrines.

That's because you're trying to apply 20th century thought processes to an 18th century issue. If you are correct, why would the Founding Fathers do so much to ingrain Christianity into American government and policies? The fact is that the Church of England was controlled by the crown, not by the religious leadership, and that caused a lot of problems. The Founding Fathers did not want a federal church that was ruled by the Federal government, which is why they prohibited the government from establishing a church. It had nothing to do with maintaining a seperation of church and state, nor with the government endorsing one religion over another as the Founding Fathers frequently did. The Founding Fathers believed in Christianity and were quite happy to have it as a core of the government.

 

[kingvjack]

Crawl back into your bottle dickweed!

Maybe you should relax a little there, asshat

 

[Ken King]

Maybe you should I'll just pray that the next tornado knocks the rest of the sh!t out of Kansas.

 

[Tonio]

why would the Founding Fathers do so much to ingrain Christianity into American government and policies?

Can you give me some examples?

Here are my own beliefs: There is no "one true faith." Religious faith is a very personal thing. Not that people choose their faiths from an ecumenical buffet, but that every person has a different gnostic experience. That experience is not a "feeling"--I believe it goes much, much deeper than simple emotion. Every Christian I've met has a different experience of the grace of God and Jesus and Mary, and no two experiences are alike.

 

[kingvjack]

Maybe you should I'll just pray that the next tornado knocks the rest of the sh!t out of Kansas.

It was only a joke tard ass. It's pretty funny though, sh!t outta kansas, I'll have to remember that one. Get back to your original conversation.