PDA

View Full Version : The ACLU doesn't want any crosses on Federal Property!



Soonerpsycho
10/12/2003, 11:17 PM
Nuff' said!
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/SnrpsychNets/aclusucks.jpg

BamaBaby
10/13/2003, 12:38 AM
Great point...

me thinks the aclu and the naacp need to find better things to do with their time and money than try and rewrite the past.

Ike
10/13/2003, 12:46 AM
yes, and I dont want any politicians on Federal property, but I aint gettin my way on that one any time soon.

jk the sooner fan
10/13/2003, 08:14 AM
isnt that a cemetary in france?

Break_the_chain
8/8/2006, 06:54 PM
This chain letter has changed a good bit since it first surfaced in 2002. In its current form, it appears to be warning conscientious Christians that the ACLU is out to remove crosses from government cemeteries. This is not true, nor was it probably the intent of the chain's original author.





The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Over the years, that provision has been interpreted to say that government must consider all religions or none at all in its policies. To include one faith's beliefs, icons or traditions in government-sponsored activities or facilities, to the exclusion of others, has been ruled in many high court cases to violate the first amendment, hence the court's requirement of a "separation of church and state."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) frequently draws criticism from Christian interests and others because it advocates for absolutely no government-sanctioned religion. It is the ACLU that backed lawsuits regarding the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the propriety of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama Courthouse. What rankles most is the ACLU's insistence that the First Amendment guarantee of free religion includes the choice to follow no religion, thus any tolerance by the government of any one religion is seen as a violation.

In its original form, the letter above was a patriotically charged and good-hearted jab at the ACLU. As it has circulated, the irony it originally played up has slid away as many forwarders take the message literally and assume the ACLU really is going after crosses in military cemeteries. In a statement, the ACLU denies such actions:

"The ACLU is not pursuing, nor has it ever pursued, the removal of religious symbols from personal gravestones. Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The ACLU celebrates this freedom to choose the religious symbol of your choice."



Some versions have identified the cemetery in the picture as Arlington National Cemetery and went as far as to assert that the ACLU was, indeed, going after that revered institution. It is not. In fact, the picture depicts a cemetery in Europe. Break this Chain.

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 07:00 PM
isnt that a cemetary in france?

Yep.
I've been there twice. I took a trip over there to visit my great-uncle's gravestone who was killed on July 4th, '44.

As an American, it was one of the most moving experiance of my life. I've never been to a National Cemetary quite as moving as that one. Even Arlington can't compare to it. The staff there is also fantastic. You tell them your family member's name and they wheel out a golf cart and take you over to it and even provide you with pics of the headstone and a packet.

Anyone who goes to Normandy can't come back until they've visited that place.

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 07:38 PM
OH MY NON-SPECIFIC DEITY WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST!!!!

Relax, skippy. The ACLU recognizes that a cross on a gravesite at a national cemetery is that person's endorsement of faith, not the government's and has no problem with it so long as Jewish people can have Stars of David, Muslims can have Crescents, or whatever.

Soonrboy
8/8/2006, 08:08 PM
Everytime I'm on federal property, I'm always looking for a cross or some other sign of Christianity. Then I know that I'm working with good decent, God-fearing people.

:rolleyes:

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 08:56 PM
Let me be honest for a moment...
I am not a religous person. I haven't been to church in years and haven't attended one regularly since I was about 8.

I don't really like to go to church. And Christian fundamentalists make me nervous; I also partially blame them for the decreasing emphasis on limited government within the conservative movement.

All of that having been said...
I get very uncomfortable at anyone or any organization that attemps to strip any sort of religous reference out of government. I'm sure I'll be scoffed at and possibly even negged for what I'm about to say, but it's very very important for our government to acknowledge God or some sort of higher authority than themselves.

Our rights, are based in part, on the belief that government is only securing and protecting those rights which God has mandated that man is entitled to have. The Government should not and can not deny a person of a right which God himself has bestowed upon them.

Why is this relavent to a modern seperation argument? If government ceases to acknowledge that there is a higher power than itself then the rights that higher power has bestowed upon us has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is government. If the government takes a neutral position on the existence of a higher being then it logically follows that any rights we enjoy are granted to us not by a higher power which Government won't acknowledge but that government itself.

Now, I am totally against the government declaring anykind of religion including christianity to be "official", but I do believe the government should acknowledge a higher power. If people want to interpret that as a Judeo/Christian or Muslim God then fine. It can be Vishnu for all I care.

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 09:09 PM
Why do rights have to derive from some outside source? Why can't these rights be self-evident and derive logically from that which is necessary for man's operation in society?

TopDawg
8/8/2006, 09:12 PM
but it's very very important for our government to acknowledge God or some sort of higher authority than themselves.

Our rights, are based in part, on the belief that government is only securing and protecting those rights which God has mandated that man is entitled to have. The Government should not and can not deny a person of a right which God himself has bestowed upon them.

Why is this relavent to a modern seperation argument? If government ceases to acknowledge that there is a higher power than itself then the rights that higher power has bestowed upon us has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is government. If the government takes a neutral position on the existence of a higher being then it logically follows that any rights we enjoy are granted to us not by a higher power which Government won't acknowledge but that government itself.

Now, I am totally against the government declaring anykind of religion including christianity to be "official", but I do believe the government should acknowledge a higher power. If people want to interpret that as a Judeo/Christian or Muslim God then fine. It can be Vishnu for all I care.

The problem is that using a cross seems to take it from "some sort of higher authority" to "Jesus" which seems to be very close to the government declaring Christianity as "official." A lot of what you said makes sense, but it confuses me on how you feel about the issue being discussed in this thread.

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 09:33 PM
Why do rights have to derive from some outside source? Why can't these rights be self-evident and derive logically from that which is necessary for man's operation in society?

Well, that's a good point but the problem is that I don't think you could reach any kind of concensus on what is a "self-evident right derived logically from man's contemporary needs in society." You couldn't form a concensus to agree the sky is blue.

Also, of course, what is necessary for man's operation in society would change as society changes therefore the reality of the situation would be that no fundamental rights to anything truly exist. You'd instead have temporary privileges decided by society dictating what rights you need in order to function at that specific moment. That's a scary proposition for me.


A lot of what you said makes sense, but it confuses me on how you feel about the issue being discussed in this thread.

It was mostly in reference to Soonrboy's coments.

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 09:41 PM
Also, of course, what is necessary for man's operation in society would change as society changes therefore the reality of the situation would be that no fundamental rights to anything truly exist. You'd instead have temporary privileges decided by society dictating what rights you need in order to function at that specific moment. That's a scary proposition for me.


I think that's an unneccesarily nihilistic view of man and society. The rights contained in our Bill of Rights could be argued very easily from a logical standpoint as necessary for the functioning of a non-totalitarian society.

TheBobbyTrain
8/8/2006, 10:10 PM
ok then they're not crosses, they're merely lower case t's

DrZaius
8/8/2006, 10:37 PM
ACLU, they people are maniacs.

I figured that they are just plain EVIL after I read the story of them taking up the defense of NAMBLA

Soonrboy
8/8/2006, 10:38 PM
The Government should not and can not deny a person of a right which God himself has bestowed upon them.



What rights did God bestow on us? I don't remember the bill of rights in the bible. God did make us responsible for our neighbors and gave us the charge of being guardians of the Earth.

LSUMeathead
8/8/2006, 10:45 PM
ACLU wants parish to forget cross

Katrina memorial bears Jesus' face

Sunday, August 06, 2006
By Karen Turni Bazile

Alarmed by newspaper reports that a hurricane memorial in St. Bernard Parish will feature a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana is reminding parish officials of the Constitution's separation of church and state.

Never one to back down, Parish President Henry "Junior" Rodriguez has a simple reply: "They can kiss my a$$."



http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1154844074102520.xml?NZNPMT&coll=1

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 10:48 PM
ACLU, they people are maniacs.

I figured that they are just plain EVIL after I read the story of them taking up the defense of NAMBLA

NAMBLA has the same right to publish materials that are ****ed up and wrong as any of us do. The ACLU in no way endorses anything NAMBLA stands for, they were standing up for everyone's right to hold whatever ****ed-up view they want and argue that view in the marketplace of ideas.

SoonerInKCMO
8/8/2006, 10:49 PM
http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1154844074102520.xml?NZNPMT&coll=1

Good. Maybe I should increase my monthly donations.

DrZaius
8/8/2006, 10:57 PM
It is still wrong.

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 10:58 PM
What rights did God bestow on us? I don't remember the bill of rights in the bible. God did make us responsible for our neighbors and gave us the charge of being guardians of the Earth.

The BOR aren't inalienable rights ;).
The BOR are rights similar to the ones mentioned by Froz that best protect and allow us to exercise our inalienable rights.

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:09 PM
Relax, skippy. The ACLU recognizes that a cross on a gravesite at a national cemetery is that person's endorsement of faith, not the government's and has no problem with it so long as Jewish people can have Stars of David, Muslims can have Crescents, or whatever.

If thats the case, then why are they objecting to having a MEMORIAL ON PRIVATE PROPTERY?????



(August 8, 2006)--The American Civil Liberties Union is objecting to plans for a memorial to the 129 residents of Louisiana's St. Bernard Parish who died in Hurricane Katrina, because it will include a cross bearing a likeness of the face of Jesus.

In a letter to parish officials, Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook said the plan violates separation of church and state because the memorial would be alongside a public waterway.

But the parish president says he sees nothing wrong with the memorial, which will be erected on private land near the Mississippi River's Gulf outlet and is being financed with donations.http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/3522316.html

Oh no, now we can't have crosses on PRIVATE land!

Better start burning those churchs down.

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:13 PM
NAMBLA has the same right to publish materials that are ****ed up and wrong as any of us do. The ACLU in no way endorses anything NAMBLA stands for, they were standing up for everyone's right to hold whatever ****ed-up view they want and argue that view in the marketplace of ideas.
Thus the fault of the ACLU.

Lack of common sense.

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 11:18 PM
Thus the fault of the ACLU.

Lack of common sense.

I'm pretty much with Froz on that. As bad as NAMBLA is, they have a right to advocate anything they want so long as they don't act on those impulses. Now, of course every damned one of them is a sick bastard who probably does but the organization itself has a right to exist and their right to advocate whatever they want should be protected.

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 11:18 PM
If thats the case, then why are they objecting to having a MEMORIAL ON PRIVATE PROPTERY?????


http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/3522316.html

Oh no, now we can't have crosses on PRIVATE land!

Better start burning those churchs down.

Based on what you've stated here, then they're wrong. But I bet there's more to the story.

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 11:19 PM
Thus the fault of the ACLU.

Lack of common sense.

Thus the fault of Tuba.

Lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights.

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:21 PM
Thus the fault of Tuba.

Lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights.

Some how I doubt the founders would have been in favor of letting child molesters/preditors be given a voice so they could rape children, but i guess thats just me.

Nevertheless, we should all thank the ACLU for standing up for such fine people.

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 11:22 PM
Here's the ACLU's response to the Gravestone hoax, by the way:
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file399_26244.pdf

Tuba, a cursory inspection of the ACLU's website doesn't show any such objection to anything going on with a Katrina memorial. They're usually pretty good about putting that stuff on their site to explain their side of the issue. Can you provide me anything with a direct quote from the ACLU saying they've done this?

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:23 PM
Based on what you've stated here, then they're wrong. But I bet there's more to the story.

Sorry, but its not what I have stated here, its what the media has been reporting for the last few days.

Another great example of the ACLU's war on Christians.

olevetonahill
8/8/2006, 11:23 PM
I'm not anything. But I do have enough sense to Know that the Founding Fathers were talking about A Govt. Established religion Ala king Jame's and his church of england
Our Gov. was founded on Christian principals .
Separation of Church and state were later Lib views
Like I said I don't care 1 way or the other But give the religion thing a rest
Hell Our whole Country was founded on Christian believes :cool:

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 11:23 PM
Some how I doubt the founders would have been in favor of letting child molesters/preditors be given a voice so they could rape children, but i guess thats just me.

Nevertheless, we should all thank the ACLU for standing up for such fine people.

Oh, gotcha. When we're talking about the second amendment, then the framers were all-knowing and contemplative, but not when we're talking about the first amendment.

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 11:25 PM
Some how I doubt the founders would have been in favor of letting child molesters/preditors be given a voice so they could rape children, but i guess thats just me.

Nevertheless, we should all thank the ACLU for standing up for such fine people.

Nobody is saying they should be given a right to rape children; they have the right to advocate the rape of children. Now, of course that distinction is lost on most people, but there's a clear line between advocating the right to do something that is presently illegal and actually acting on that impulse.

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:25 PM
Here's the ACLU's response to the Gravestone hoax, by the way:
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file399_26244.pdf

Tuba, a cursory inspection of the ACLU's website doesn't show any such objection to anything going on with a Katrina memorial. They're usually pretty good about putting that stuff on their site to explain their side of the issue. Can you provide me anything with a direct quote from the ACLU saying they've done this?

So where does it say anything about the Katrina memorial on here?

Why do they have a problem with it Frozen?

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 11:27 PM
Sorry, but its not what I have stated here, its what the media has been reporting for the last few days.

Another great example of the ACLU's war on Christians.

And of course, there's more to the story you decided to leave out.

Like how the parish council voted to establish the monument in that form.

And how council members are the ones chairing the committee raising donations for it.

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:29 PM
Nobody is saying they should be given a right to rape children; they have the right to advocate the rape of children. Now, of course that distinction is lost on most people, but there's a clear line between advocating the right to do something that is presently illegal and actually acting on that impulse.
Yes, I think most people are pretty clear on this.

But what the ACLU has done to protect these sorry ****ers from the justice the families of the victims deserve, its pretty sickening. Almost as sickening as the NAMBLA apologists on this board.

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 11:29 PM
:sigh:
Tuba...Tuba...Tuba...

You're a shining example of why conservatism is d-e-a-d.

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:31 PM
And of course, there's more to the story you decided to leave out.

Like how the parish council voted to establish the monument in that form.

And how council members are the ones chairing the committee raising donations for it.

Why does it matter?

Its on private property.

You get that part? Its a pretty easy concept to understand.

Glad to know your beloved ACLU repects private property so much.

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 11:31 PM
Yes, I think most people are pretty clear on this.

But what the ACLU has done to protect these sorry ****ers from the justice the families of the victims deserve, its pretty sickening. Almost as sickening as the NAMBLA apologists on this board.

lol

Who the hell is a "NAMBLA" apologist? I don't know the specific details of whatever case you're talking about, but I do know that the families of exploited children have often sued an organization like NAMBLA for promoting that exploitation. I'm sympathetic with the families, and whatever bastards did that deserve nothing less than a bullet in the head; however, you can not simply shut an organization down for advocating something no matter how sick or distasteful it is. I wouldn't hold NAMBLA liable for someone raping a kid anymore than I hold Smith and Wesson accountable for someone shooting a gas station clerk.

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:32 PM
:sigh:
Tuba...Tuba...Tuba...

You're a shining example of why conservatism is d-e-a-d.

No, actually you are my friend.

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 11:35 PM
No, actually you are my friend.

Ah yes, I didn't get that memo that if you haven't taken up the banner of neo-conservatism since it became popular within like..what..the last 4-5 years then you clearly aren't a conservative and never have been. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:36 PM
I wouldn't hold NAMBLA liable for someone raping a kid anymore than I hold Smith and Wesson accountable for someone shooting a gas station clerk.

Well, then we have to disagree on this.

I believe that if any group is promoting rape of minors, then it has to be dealt with via the law.

But please, go ahead and shill for this. Its very "conservative" of you to do so. :rolleyes:

Frozen Sooner
8/8/2006, 11:38 PM
Why does it matter?

Its on private property.

You get that part? Its a pretty easy concept to understand.

Glad to know your beloved ACLU repects private property so much.

And this, folks, is why you don't wrestle a pig.

The problem isn't the memorial itself. The problem is that a memorial to the lives of various people of various religions was endorsed by a local government to promote one religion over all others. It doesn't matter one whit if the memorial is on private property or not. What matters is that it's a government action that endorses one religion over others.

Admittedly, it's a bit of a stretch and the ACLU could probably spend their time on something a bit better. But it's a legitimate issue-the parish government had no business endorsing a memorial of this form.

I bid you a good night, as all possible entertainment value on this thread has been extracted. Perhaps you should take a hint that when SicEmBaylor and I agree on something that it's probably something pretty self-evident.

SCOUT
8/8/2006, 11:38 PM
I understand some of the ideas where people oppose crosses on public property. If it establishes a religion it causes a problem. My problem is that the test for establishing a religion has become too lax. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Our rights were bestowed by our creator and superceded the rule of a government. This simple concept is what made the forming of our country so historically significant. To try and change that concept would be changing the foundation of our country.

Oh, and NAMBLA can say anything they want as long as it doesn't cause a detriment to society. I have an issue with the idea that they provide strategies to molest children and not get caught. I believe
that falls into the 'fire in a crowded theater' category.

SicEmBaylor
8/8/2006, 11:40 PM
Well, then we have to disagree on this.

I believe that if any group is promoting rape of minors, then it has to be dealt with via the law.

But please, go ahead and shill for this. Its very "conservative" of you to do so. :rolleyes:

I think it's a conservative thing to protect someone's constitutional right to advocate whatever the hell they want. If they break the law then they should be dealt with accordingly; unless you want to make advocating something illegal against the law and then we're screwed.

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:41 PM
Ah yes, I didn't get that memo that if you haven't taken up the banner of neo-conservatism since it became popular within like..what..the last 4-5 years then you clearly aren't a conservative and never have been. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ahh, I get it.

I'm a big ol mean "neo-con" cause I don't want the ACLU trying to push around people to keep them from putting relgious symbols on private property?

I guess REAL conservatives should welcome the ACLU to tresspass on our rights and keep the law from protecting children from rapists and those who promote child rape?

Would you agree with that? You seem to, as a real conservative I mean.

OklahomaTuba
8/8/2006, 11:47 PM
It doesn't matter one whit if the memorial is on private property or not.

Obviously, the ACLU agrees with you.


I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

Roger Baldwin - Founder of the ACLU

Go ACLU!

OklahomaTuba
8/9/2006, 12:11 AM
I think it's a conservative thing to protect someone's constitutional right to advocate whatever the hell they want. If they break the law then they should be dealt with accordingly; unless you want to make advocating something illegal against the law and then we're screwed.

Well then, I guess we know where you would stand on this issue. Pretty sickening position to have I think.


A grieving Massachusetts couple is at the center of a court battle over free speech rights.

Robert and Barbara Curley have filed a $200 million wrongful death lawsuit against the North American Man Boy Love Association -- an organization that defends what it calls 'intergenerational sex'. Critics call them pedophiles.

The Curleys' lawsuit claims that NAMBLA and seven of the group's leaders encouraged the "illegal rape of young male children," which ultimately led to the 1997 murder of their 10-year-old son Jeffrey Curley.

On its Web site, NAMBLA says it is a political organization that favors repeal of age-of-consent laws, but opposes any form of sexual coercion.

NAMBLA did not return phone calls from CNN seeking comment on the lawsuit. The American Civil Liberties Union is defending NAMBLA in the name of free speech.



Police found publications from NAMBLA in Jaynes' car, where Jeffrey was killed, and a diary in Jaynes' apartment where he had written about seducing young boys and told how NAMBLA changed his life:

"This was a turning point in discovery of myself.... NAMBLA's Bulletin helped me to become aware of my own sexuality and acceptance of it," Jaynes wrote.http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/01/08/nambla.suit.crim/

Let that sink in, if "real" conservatives are allowed too that is.

yermom
8/9/2006, 02:00 AM
what group shouldn't be able to exist next? the KKK? Wiccans? Atheists? NORML?

TopDawg
8/9/2006, 07:35 AM
what group shouldn't be able to exist next? the KKK? Wiccans? Atheists? NORML?

Neo-cons

Sooner_Bob
8/9/2006, 07:46 AM
what group shouldn't be able to exist next? the KKK? Wiccans? Atheists? NORML?


I'll bet that's a whole new thread right there . . . :pop:

Fugue
8/9/2006, 01:08 PM
IMO, NAMBLA isn't worthy of ACLU protection. Maybe it's because I have two young sons or maybe it's because I've seen the NAMBLA manual on getting around the Big Bro Big Sis matchability questions but these people are nothing but terrorists of little children. The thought that these pukes would love to get one of my sons alone in a room just makes my blood boil. And I'm guessing that if the framers found a group of these scumbags they would have taken them out back and shot them like they deserve. Just my 2 cents.

:hot:

achiro
8/9/2006, 01:28 PM
The problem isn't the memorial itself. The problem is that a memorial to the lives of various people of various religions was endorsed by a local government to promote one religion over all others.
The way I understand the issue is that the only issue is that because they are government employees that they can't do this. The money was raised privately, it is on private property. I never heard anything about them using the "government pulpit" to promote the idea. What next, you are a Senator so you can't attend church?

yermom
8/9/2006, 01:33 PM
this is more than just going to church

why would a parish council be deciding something on private property?

they were acting as part of that council, not as private citizens

achiro
8/9/2006, 01:46 PM
this is more than just going to church

why would a parish council be deciding something on private property?

they were acting as part of that council, not as private citizens
I don't know the specifics and just read in an earlier post that they voted on it. I do know that city councils often vote on whether or not to allow something(like turning a property from residential to commercial) to happen or not. Maybe it was something like that?

SicEmBaylor
8/9/2006, 01:48 PM
I don't know the specifics and just read in an earlier post that they voted on it. I do know that city councils often vote on whether or not to allow something(like turning a property from residential to commercial) to happen or not. Maybe it was something like that?

I think it went beyond that to the point that they acted more like a board of directors for the project including raising funds (albeit private not public).

SicEmBaylor
8/9/2006, 01:53 PM
Ahh, I get it.
I guess REAL conservatives should welcome the ACLU to tresspass on our rights and keep the law from protecting children from rapists and those who promote child rape?

Would you agree with that? You seem to, as a real conservative I mean.

I never said I liked the ACLU. I think this is one hell of a lousy case for them to get involved in. If they are worried about the legal precedent then surely there are other cases out there involving organizations not nearly as sick as NAMBLA.

That being said, for the nth time NAMBLA and any other organization has a right to advocate whatever they want. Their right to do so should absolutely be protected. Their right to act on what they're advocating should not. Like I said, these people deserve nothing less than a slug to the skull.

It's dangerous to start a precedent though of criminalizing organizations for simply advocating an issue. You need to think through the ramifications of that involving organizations and issues well above and far beyond NAMBLA. I don't give a rat's *** about NAMBLA, but I do care about the legal precedent it would create by criminalizing an advocacy group.

Surely, even you with your GOP blinders on, can see why that would be a potential problem.

SicEmBaylor
8/9/2006, 01:54 PM
Neo-cons
Spek.

Fugue
8/9/2006, 01:57 PM
I never said I liked the ACLU. I think this is one hell of a lousy case for them to get involved in. If they are worried about the legal precedent then surely there are other cases out there involving organizations not nearly as sick as NAMBLA.

That being said, for the nth time NAMBLA and any other organization has a right to advocate whatever they want. Their right to do so should absolutely be protected. Their right to act on what they're advocating should not. Like I said, these people deserve nothing less than a slug to the skull.

It's dangerous to start a precedent though of criminalizing organizations for simply advocating an issue. You need to think through the ramifications of that involving organizations and issues well above and far beyond NAMBLA. I don't give a rat's *** about NAMBLA, but I do care about the legal precedent it would create by criminalizing an advocacy group.

Surely, even you with your GOP blinders on, can see why that would be a potential problem.

I see your point and agree in almost all cases of this but NAMBLA's sole purpose is to advocate an issue that is criminal.

SicEmBaylor
8/9/2006, 02:08 PM
I see your point and agree in almost all cases of this but NAMBLA's sole purpose is to advocate an issue that is criminal.

So is NORML's, so are a lot of organizations that advocate overturning an existing law or advocating the legalization of a practice currently illegal.

Now, I'm not trying to equate pot smoking with child rape but I'm just saying that advocating the legalization of a criminal activity shouldn't be the basis for criminalizing an organizatin.

Fugue
8/9/2006, 02:10 PM
So is NORML's, so are a lot of organizations that advocate overturning an existing law or advocating the legalization of a practice currently illegal.

Now, I'm not trying to equate pot smoking with child rape but I'm just saying that advocating the legalization of a criminal activity shouldn't be the basis for criminalizing an organizatin.

I would argue that the difference you just mentioned should be the basis. The victims of NAMBLA efforts are the exact ones who need additional protections.

SicEmBaylor
8/9/2006, 02:10 PM
At this point, let me issue this caveat here..
For those of you who know SicEmPolitics, there is a perfectly legitimate way in which government can and probably should restrict NAMBLA's activities. If you can tell me how that would theoretically (becuase it's presently impossible) accomplished then major spek to you, and I'll buy you a legitimate beer (not zima) at the Baylor game. :D

Fugue
8/9/2006, 02:12 PM
At this point, let me issue this caveat here..
For those of you who know SicEmPolitics, there is a perfectly legitimate way in which government can and probably should restrict NAMBLA's activities. If you can tell me how that would theoretically (becuase it's presently impossible) accomplished then major spek to you, and I'll buy you a legitimate beer (not zima) at the Baylor game. :D

shoot them?

I like Guinness. :D

SoonerInKCMO
8/9/2006, 02:25 PM
At this point, let me issue this caveat here..
For those of you who know SicEmPolitics, there is a perfectly legitimate way in which government can and probably should restrict NAMBLA's activities. If you can tell me how that would theoretically (becuase it's presently impossible) accomplished then major spek to you, and I'll buy you a legitimate beer (not zima) at the Baylor game. :D

Send 'em to Guantanamo?

Some Dixies Blackened Voodoo Lager would be nice.

SicEmBaylor
8/9/2006, 02:39 PM
Royalfan or Oct should get it; if not I'm giving up hope.

yermom
8/9/2006, 02:48 PM
they could infiltrate them with the Wayans brothers

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/07/12/little_man_060712074246247_wideweb__300x340,1.jpg

PDXsooner
8/9/2006, 03:00 PM
the aclu has been pretty steadfast and unwavering in their support of EVRYONE'S right to free speech and separation of church and state.

it seems like people's hate towards the aclu always seems to be when the aclu is defending someone's right to say something they disagree with.

SicEmBaylor
8/9/2006, 03:26 PM
the aclu has been pretty steadfast and unwavering in their support of EVRYONE'S right to free speech and separation of church and state.

it seems like people's hate towards the aclu always seems to be when the aclu is defending someone's right to say something they disagree with.

My problem with the ACLU has nothing to do with who they represent, but their selective interpretation of the constitution; however, though I detest the organization I'm not going to say they're wrong when they're right simply becuase I generally disagree with them.

Frozen Sooner
8/9/2006, 09:49 PM
At this point, let me issue this caveat here..
For those of you who know SicEmPolitics, there is a perfectly legitimate way in which government can and probably should restrict NAMBLA's activities. If you can tell me how that would theoretically (becuase it's presently impossible) accomplished then major spek to you, and I'll buy you a legitimate beer (not zima) at the Baylor game. :D

I'd probably hit 'em with conspiracy charges, but I don't think they'd stick as no specific victim is identified.

OklahomaTuba
8/9/2006, 10:11 PM
It's dangerous to start a precedent though of criminalizing organizations for simply advocating an issue. You need to think through the ramifications of that involving organizations and issues well above and far beyond NAMBLA. I don't give a rat's *** about NAMBLA, but I do care about the legal precedent it would create by criminalizing an advocacy group.

How about terrorist advocacy groups? I guess we should "think" about the ramifications of going after terrorist groups as well? I mean, we don't want to violate their freedoms after all.

:rolleyes:

12
8/9/2006, 10:15 PM
BamaBaby, I think you misread the acronym, though I do agree with you.

mdklatt
8/9/2006, 10:19 PM
How about terrorist advocacy groups?


According to you, the more than half of the country that isn't registered Republican is a terrorist advocacy group. That's a lot of prison cells.

OklahomaTuba
8/9/2006, 10:23 PM
it seems like people's hate towards the aclu always seems to be when the aclu is defending someone's right to say something they disagree with.

I guess that true, if you ignore the facts.

But somehow, I think the Boy Scouts of America would have to disagree with your flawed analysis, as no group has been harassed more by the facists within the ACLU than them.

OklahomaTuba
8/9/2006, 10:28 PM
According to you, the more than half of the country that isn't registered Republican is a terrorist advocacy group. That's a lot of prison cells.

According to me?

You must be confused, as usual. ;)

Jerk
8/10/2006, 05:16 AM
NAMBLA should get rights. The right to two in the chest and one in the head.

Jerk
8/10/2006, 05:18 AM
I wish the aclu supported the 2nd amendment. Dudes, we'd all have machine guns and RPG's

Jerk
8/10/2006, 05:21 AM
At this point, let me issue this caveat here..
For those of you who know SicEmPolitics, there is a perfectly legitimate way in which government can and probably should restrict NAMBLA's activities. If you can tell me how that would theoretically (becuase it's presently impossible) accomplished then major spek to you, and I'll buy you a legitimate beer (not zima) at the Baylor game. :D


What you do is make it a misdomeanor crime with a $1.00 fine and an "I'm sorry" for Assault and Battery of any NAMBLA member. If they die then the fine goes to $1.15