You are exactly correct, Fastbreak. One should be able to examine an idea, and be able to to embrace or reject it base upon it's merits (or lack thereof).

You know Francie, at its roots, we are pretty close on this one. However, we appear to differ at the point of our willingness to immerse ourselves in the full discourse (both pro and con) surrounding certain issues before we are willing to make a judgment regarding its merits.

 

A pig has a “right” to wallow in mud made up of dirt, urine and feces. That is its nature. I do not however, feel compelled to do so myself to fully comprehend a pig’s point of view before I can reasonably determine that doing so would produce truly fetid and possibly unhealthy results.

Precisely. Of course, the ability to reason is based upon a solid understanding of logic and rational thought - which come from an unrestricted educational process. The exposure to ideas that we might find distasteful will not cripple us, but the censorship of ideas will surely do so.

I realize that stereotypes are stereotypes because they tend to define patterns. I do not fit this popular stereotype. I have never advocated the censorship of ideas, nor have I endorsed the restriction of education in any manner.

 

I do however, find it amusing that the very people who argue the most strenuously for “open minds” and a “diverse (liberal) curriculum” are often the very same individuals who most strongly resist the inclusion of certain concepts within our children’s educational process.

 

Another stereotype I realize… hopefully this one does not fit you either.

The ACLU does not defend the message of NAMBLA. It IS defending the rights of an organization (however reprehensible we find their message) to speak freely.

The concepts of “intelligent design” and a “creator” are accepted by a significant majority of the world’s religions and population, but they are prohibited from virtually every public textbook in America.

 

If the ACLU can fight for the free speech of NAMBLA, why are our children prohibited from at least considering one of the most universally accepted concepts of humankind? This is not the establishment of religion prohibited by the Constitution. It is merely the consideration and discussion of an idea that has existed throughout human history.

 

Is homosexual pedophilia somehow less dangerous—and by default more worthy of constitutional protection in the value system of the ACLU—than the idea of a Creator?

I know that (like me) you are a strong proponent of individual responsibility. In light of that stance, I find it odd that anyone would not hold the people that committed the crime responsible - rather than someone that merely speaks about it.

I am a committed proponent of individual responsibility. I’m not sure who you reference (or imply) above, but there is no waffling in my stance that those actually committing crimes should be those who pay for their actions.

 

The ACLU is not providing traction for people that espouse homosexual pedophilia - it is the misunderstanding of their actions is the culprit.

I fully understand the ACLU’s actions. We simply disagree on the matter of “traction.”

And I am all for reading the entire story, digesting it, and fully grasping the issue at hand, prior to forming an opinion and shooting myself in the foot, by supporting an uninformed hysteria which will ultimately strip away our right of free speech if allowed to go unchallenged.

I applaud your stated mode of operation. The older, (an hopefully wiser) I become, I find it less necessary to fully plumb the depths of every idea and concept in order to determine its merits. Some of this has to do with the maturity of a worldview that has been built upon a very open education and is grounded in faith. Some has to do with the fact that we stand upon the shoulders of giants who preceded us. We have more knowledge, more readily available to the common man than at any other time in history. It is not necessary for me to thoroughly investigate Mein Kampf, to determine that Nazism, totalitarian rule and genocide justified via Aryan theology are deeply flawed concepts that bear no worthy fruit.

 

Yes, it is good to understand these concepts so that we might identify their practice in time to stop them, (as in present day Iran) but the time for openly discussing and seriously considering them as reasonable methods of governance should be long past.

Another stereotype I realize… hopefully this one does not fit you either.

The concepts of “intelligent design” and a “creator” are accepted by a significant majority of the world’s religions and population, but they are prohibited from virtually every public textbook in America.

 

If the ACLU can fight for the free speech of NAMBLA, why are our children prohibited from at least considering one of the most universally accepted concepts of humankind? This is not the establishment of religion prohibited by the Constitution. It is merely the consideration and discussion of an idea that has existed throughout human history.

 

Is homosexual pedophilia somehow less dangerous—and by default more worthy of constitutional protection in the value system of the ACLU—than the idea of a Creator?

.

 

 

Overall a good post FB.

 

However I disagree with the point I quoted.

 

1. You are right that such notions as "intelligent design" et al are recognized by religions it is not that widely recognized by the scientific community. If you want it taught as a science is where the problem lies. If you want it taught in a religion course then by all means. If you want it taught as science then present the good science in it's position but stand along side contradictory scientific thought as well. As for it being around since history, I agree. Do we include only the Genesis version or the "Tiamat Story" from the Mesopotamia which predates the writing of Genesis by quite a few years.

 

2. I think your lumping NAMBLA with Creationism being taught is apples and oranges. NAMBLA is not being allowed in the schools as some course of study. Creationism is attempting to infuse itself in curriculum without as much data as other theories. "Intelligent Design" can also be found in any basic Philosophy class under the Ontological Arguments.

A pig has a “right” to wallow in mud made up of dirt, urine and feces. That is its nature. I do not however, feel compelled to do so myself to fully comprehend a pig’s point of view before I can reasonably determine that doing so would produce truly fetid and possibly unhealthy results.

Great. Now I can't get the Beatles song Piggies out of my head. :creepy:

While I respect your opinion Hatz, my point is not so much the mechanics of the discussion of divine creation, but more so the fact that with rare exception the ACLU leaps to defend the freedom of speech of such flawed and broken causes as NAMBLA, and then turns around and fights traditional American spiritual values as if they were a cancer upon our society.

 

Noble as some might wish to portray them, there is a significant degree of hypocrisy on the part of the ACLU that the occasional stab at evenhandedness as described by Frances cannot dismiss.

Over the years, the ACLU has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Oliver North, and the National Socialist Party.

The only supposedly “fundamentalist Christian church” of which I know of the ACLU defending has been Westboro Baptist Church, home of hate-monger Fred Phelps. While Fred and company may argue otherwise, there is nothing “fundamentally Christian” about their message. The ACLU nobly defending their right to protest and spew hatred at the funerals of fallen soldiers and slain Amish schoolgirls does not mitigate their perpetual warfare against true Christian values.

 

They have fought for the removal of the Ten Commandments, Christmas Nativity Scenes, Crosses and Christian symbols in city emblems, prayer in school, etc., etc.

 

The fact that they can argue in favor of NAMBLA’s rights of free speech and against those of truly spiritual individuals and organizations speaks volumes.

Obviously, you have not been in a classroom to consider required reading to mean the kids will actually read it.

As a history fanatic, I do not think I have read the book :lol:

While I respect your opinion Hatz, my point is not so much the mechanics of the discussion of divine creation, but more so the fact that with rare exception the ACLU leaps to defend the freedom of speech of such flawed and broken causes as NAMBLA, and then turns around and fights traditional American spiritual values as if they were a cancer upon our society.

 

Noble as some might wish to portray them, there is a significant degree of hypocrisy on the part of the ACLU that the occasional stab at evenhandedness as described by Frances cannot dismiss. The only supposedly “fundamentalist Christian church” of which I know of the ACLU defending has been Westboro Baptist Church, home of hate-monger Fred Phelps. While Fred and company may argue otherwise, there is nothing “fundamentally Christian” about their message. The ACLU nobly defending their right to protest and spew hatred at the funerals of fallen soldiers and slain Amish schoolgirls does not mitigate their perpetual warfare against true Christian values.

 

They have fought for the removal of the Ten Commandments, Christmas Nativity Scenes, Crosses and Christian symbols in city emblems, prayer in school, etc., etc.

 

The fact that they can argue in favor of NAMBLA’s rights of free speech and against those of truly spiritual individuals and organizations speaks volumes.

 

The ACLU-the possible destruction of us all. I honestly believe this is the source of what is the worst of yet to come.

The ACLU-the possible destruction of us all. I honestly believe this is the source of what is the worst of yet to come.

 

Yeah, Heaven forbid we'd have an organization out there who bothered to speak for or bother to defend those without a voice …

Yeah, Heaven forbid we'd have an organization out there who bothered to speak for or bother to defend those without a voice …

Who are you possibly referring to Jim?

 

Are you referring to adults perpetrating violent acts against pregnant mothers resulting in harm to the child, or are you referring to the fetus harmed by a violent adult? Since the ACLU has strongly opposed the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which recognizes a fetus as an independent "victim" of a crime with legal rights distinct from the woman who has been harmed by a violent criminal act, it can’t be the silent voices of unborn children you speak of…

 

Are you referring to the millions of women who've chosen to abort their children since 1971, or the 46 million infants who were the victims of abortion? The women certainly have a voice and are able to choose, the infants don't and aren't. But the ACLU has been committed to defending those with a voice on this issue.

 

Are you referring to the under-aged children that are (or would be) the victims of NAMBLA, or the perverted adults who think that sexual relations between adult males and preadolescent males is normal and natural? The ACLU has fought for the rights of those clearly with a voice at NAMBLA to spread their message.

 

Are you referring to Fred Phelps and his troop of hate monkeys screaming vitriol and gloom at the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers and school shooting victims, or are you referring to the slain soldiers and their families in mourning? The ACLU has defended Phelps and company… certainly not a group without a voice… in fact, having a loud and obnoxious voice is what they’re all about.

 

Could it be the Boy Scouts whose oath vows allegiance to God and country, a resolve to help others and a commitment to keeping themselves morally straight? Apparently such radical speech is grounds for legal action by the ACLU.

 

Could it be certain kinds of "moments of silence" in public schools? Nope, the ACLU has fought against such “silence.”

 

Could it be Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people? Can you honestly claim that this group has no voice?

 

It seems to me that the ACLU consistently represents those with a voice.

 

The ACLU has argued for the decriminalization of drugs such as heroin, cocaine and marijuana. I’m really not sure who among this esteemed industry is without a voice, but maybe that’s who you’re referring to here...

...I am a committed proponent of individual responsibility. I’m not sure who you reference (or imply) above, but there is no waffling in my stance that those actually committing crimes should be those who pay for their actions.....

 

Fastbreak -

 

If it appeared that I was challenging your committment to personal responsibility, I apologize. I know full well (and your writings have repeatedly demonstrated) that you are a strong proponent of it. Let there be no doubt of your position, or the fact that I recognize it as such.

 

In my opinion, the ACLU is an organization that argues for the rights of all of us, by defending the rights of ANYONE that has their rights violated. That often means that they take up the rights of some very objectionable individuals or groups - but it is important to remember that they do not look at the message or the messenger - only the right to express the message. If we suspend the rights of the unpopular people in this country, we effectively are saying that popularity directly equates to being correct. That is a slippery slope that leads to a very dangerous outcome. One that our founding fathers recognized, and chose to avoid at all costs - to the point of guaranteeing the right of free speech to all - not just the "popular".

 

 

As for the teaching of Creationism, like Hatz, I am all for it. I think every high school in the nation should have a class (required, in my opinion) in Comparative Religion. If such a course were available as an elective, I would insist that my two children take it.

 

In regards to the teaching of Creationism in school however, I balk when it comes to it's inclusion in a science curriculum.

 

 

Frances

Fastbreak - If it appeared that I was challenging your committment to personal responsibility, I apologize. I know full well (and your writings have repeatedly demonstrated) that you are a strong proponent of it. Let there be no doubt of your position, or the fact that I recognize it as such.

As for the teaching of Creationism, like Hatz, I am all for it. I think every high school in the nation should have a class (required, in my opinion) in Comparative Religion. If such a course were available as an elective, I would insist that my two children take it.

In regards to the teaching of Creationism in school however, I balk when it comes to it's inclusion in a science curriculum.

I appreciate your civility my friend. I was not offended, but merely making my position on personal responsibility crystal clear for those less aware of it than you… (which is basically everyone else… :lol: )

 

As far as the teaching of creationism, it is my opinion (of which I know you are well aware) that it takes no more “faith” to accept divine creation as an explanation of our origins, than it does to embrace our current scientific explanations of our origins.

 

Regardless of whether creationism is taught as science, theology, comparative religion, philosophy, historical poetic narrative, matters little. There is no way the ACLU will stand idly by and allow genuine Biblical Creation be included in the curriculum of any public school, and that in a nutshell is the rub IMO.

In my opinion, the ACLU is an organization that argues for the rights of all of us, by defending the rights of ANYONE that has their rights violated. That often means that they take up the rights of some very objectionable individuals or groups - but it is important to remember that they do not look at the message or the messenger - only the right to express the message. If we suspend the rights of the unpopular people in this country, we effectively are saying that popularity directly equates to being correct. That is a slippery slope that leads to a very dangerous outcome. One that our founding fathers recognized, and chose to avoid at all costs - to the point of guaranteeing the right of free speech to all - not just the "popular".

In a truly free society, freedom of speech not only protects our right to speak out on virtually any topic, but it must also provide the freedom to reject truly rotten ideas. Sometimes this happens via forcible and energetic exchange, other times it occurs as the simple result of a lack of interest, or of a general awareness of the emptiness of a concept.

 

Jesus said “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.” Kinda justifies de Tocqueville’s observation that “America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great!"

 

When one sincerely examines the fruit that sprouts upon the ACLU’s tree, it becomes evident that the ACLU habitually represents individuals and groups that conform to or further their own political agenda.

 

The more I think about this, the more transparent the ACLU strategy becomes.

 

Westboro Baptist and Fred Phelps epitomize virtually every negative stereotype of narrow-minded, bigoted, biased, judgmental fundamentalists that the Norman Lear crowd wish to portray as the norm in modern Christianity.

 

If I were an anti-Christian, anti-traditional values organization, (as I believe the ACLU is) I would make every effort to defend the freedom of speech rights of individuals like Fred Phelps and his organization because they put the worst possible public face on “Christianity”. We could then claim (as the ACLU does) that we are equitable and even honorable in our intentions, while at the same time tearing apart true and genuine Christianity by ensuring maximum media exposure for Phelps and company.

 

The fact that the ACLU has “defended” Phelps’ church says everything about their true agenda IMO.

 

The fact that the ACLU has convinced otherwise astute individuals that their agenda is neutral, patriotic, even honorable tells me that their strategy has been effective.

The ACLU is a defense against the tyranny of the majority. I may not like some of the degenerates they defend, but it's nice to know that if I get stuck in a bind and the world is unjustly lining up against me, there's someone out there who's got my back. I can bet that each and every one of you who demonizes the organization would think differently were your rights being trampled upon.

I can bet that each and every one of you who demonizes the organization would think differently were your rights being trampled upon.

Perhaps... if I did not sincerely feel that the ACLU has been actively trampling upon the traditional and proven values I hold dear. Their track record of consistently representing causes, groups and an ideology I find reprehensible pretty much overrides the value of any possible future defense they may deign to provide me.

Perhaps... if I did not sincerely feel that the ACLU has been actively trampling upon the traditional and proven values I hold dear. Their track record of consistently representing causes, groups and an ideology I find reprehensible pretty much overrides the value of any possible future defense they may deign to provide me.

I agree on the traditions. If we have had traditions for hundreds of years, why stop them now? I will never forget the day that they sent a letter to my school saying that the senior class, who voted & not knowing it, could not have a preacher saying stuff in the gym. It got published in town and well, as for a broken tradition, the town was fairly ticked. Where I come from the school is nothing but tradition and it always will be.

I agree on some things the ACLU has done but not very many of them.

I agree on the traditions. If we have had traditions for hundreds of years, why stop them now? I will never forget the day that they sent a letter to my school saying that the senior class, who voted & not knowing it, could not have a preacher saying stuff in the gym. It got published in town and well, as for a broken tradition, the town was fairly ticked. Where I come from the school is nothing but tradition and it always will be.

I agree on some things the ACLU has done but not very many of them.

 

It's great to have traditions. But it's wrong to cling to them just because "it's always been that way." The reasoning behind keeping them should make moral or practical sense.

 

Some other "great" traditions our country has had:

Slavery and all its by products post-slavery, such as Jim Crow laws, etc.

Men treating their women and children as property

 

Just to name two biggies ...

I'm sticking with steroids...