Author Topic: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography  (Read 9054 times)

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2007, 12:18:00 PM »
What, and federal monies are never spent on homosexuals or on organizations that support homosexuals/homosexuality?  Homosexuals don't receive special privileges under the law?

The ACLU's argument against the BSA can just as easily be reversed.  There is a very real, very legitimate, and Constitutionally protected understanding held by millions of Americans that homosexuality is wrong.  Why should those millions be forced to give up some of their paychecks to support a practice they find sinful and wrong?  Why should they be forced to pay for a Federal bureaucracy that actively supports an activity that disagree with?

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2007, 12:26:54 PM »
A lawsuit which has never occurred, but would be relevant here - a trainee of Gunsite or wherever goes nuts, slaughters a lot of people, shoots a bunch of cops before being captured. Should victims be able to sue Gunsite because they taught the wackjob how to use his weapons in a manner that later allowed him to kill a large number of people?
The analogy still isn't accurate.  Gunsite doesn't encourage anyone to commit crime.  They don't encourage people to slaughter innocent people or shoot a bunch of cops.  Gunsite goes out of its way to avoid criminals in it's classes.  They certainly don't seek out or support people who have engaged in or desire to engage in criminal activity.

NAMBLA, on the other hand, does encourage it's members to abuse children and violate laws against pedophilia and sexual abuse, claiming that such activities are acceptable and harmless.  NAMBLA is a meeting place and support organization for pedophiles.  They seek out criminals, many prominent members are self-described pedophiles, and they advocate for the right to their pedophilia without penalty.  Given that pedophilia is a crime, it isn't rational to describe NAMBLA as anything other than a criminal organization.

Until Gunsite or S&W or whomever actively encourage people to commit murder you won't have a reasonable analogy.

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2007, 12:31:08 PM »
Quote
What, and federal monies are never spent on homosexuals or on organizations that support homosexuals/homosexuality?  Homosexuals don't receive special privileges under the law?
If you can find an organization that specifically prohibits the involvement of heterosexual individuals and receives a significant portion of public funds (along with other forms of support - use of schools, etc.), let's see it.

Quote
The ACLU's argument against the BSA can just as easily be reversed.
Absolutely, in the event that you can find a Boy Scouts-analgous organization that discriminates against heterosexuals. Find it.

Quote
There is a very real, very legitimate, and Constitutionally protected understanding held by millions of Americans that homosexuality is wrong. 
Completely and utterly irrelevant - the BSA case didn't seek to deny anyone their right to hate homosexuals until the cows come home. The suit sought to stop state funding for a discriminatory organization. Period.

Quote
Why should those millions be forced to give up some of their paychecks to support a practice they find sinful and wrong?  Why should they be forced to pay for a Federal bureaucracy that actively supports an activity that disagree with?
First, I'd note that you ask only leading questions. You don't bother to actually identify which organizations are being funded by the government to "support homosexuality."

That small issue (cough) aside, we don't decide where our individual tax dollars go. Period. Some folks don't like homosexuals, I don't support the war in Iraq. I don't get to decide not to pay for Dubya's sand trap.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #28 on: February 26, 2007, 12:32:30 PM »
The ACLU's argument against the BSA can just as easily be reversed.  There is a very real, very legitimate, and Constitutionally protected understanding held by millions of Americans that homosexuality is wrong.  Why should those millions be forced to give up some of their paychecks to support a practice they find sinful and wrong?  Why should they be forced to pay for a Federal bureaucracy that actively supports an activity that disagree with?

Step back 20 years and, in that paragraph, replace "homosexuality" with "interracial marriage".

Step back 40 years, and replace it with "being black".

Step back 100 years, and replace it with "being Irish".

Now. Doesn't it sound repugnant?

I consider NAMBLA to be a bunch of people plotting criminal acts. That deserves no legal protection. But when you talk about Americans thinking that PEOPLE are wrong for being who they are...that they're somehow "wrong people" for being homosexual, you're right back into the past ugliness of blind hate and second-class citizens. And for the record, I've never talked to any gay individual that expressed anything but disgust about NAMBLA, thinking it was one of the most awful PR disasters for gay rights there is. Dirty old men lusting after boys is not the same as normal homosexuals who just happen to prefer adults of the same gender.




wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2007, 12:36:58 PM »
Quote
The analogy still isn't accurate.  Gunsite doesn't encourage anyone to commit crime.
And NAMBLA doesn't encourage anyone to rape and murder - which is what they were being sued for.

Quote
They don't encourage people to slaughter innocent people or shoot a bunch of cops.  Gunsite goes out of its way to avoid criminals in it's classes.  They certainly don't seek out or support people who have engage in or desire to engage in criminal activity.
yada yada yada, neither does NAMBLA yada yada yada.

You don't seem to have read my statement. Nowhere did I suggest that Gunsite taught criminals. Or taught how to kill cops. Or anything you've just referred to.

Again: "trainee of Gunsite or wherever goes nuts" AND  "they taught the wackjob how to use his weapons in a manner that later allowed him to kill a large number of people"

You don't think the former is possible? Was Charles Whitman 'a criminal' (since we're dealing with firearms, let's require a felony) before he killed his mother? Was the Utah shooter?
You don't think that Gunsite training would allow a schizophrenic or someone who'd simply lost it to use his weapons more effectively?

(Which, before anyone misreads: I'm pointing out the absurdity of suing a third-party with only a tenuous or non-existent connection to acts committed by a criminal.)
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2007, 12:46:23 PM »
Of course a nutjob who trained at gunsite could go crazy and hurt a bunch of people.  So what?  Gunsite didn't encourage the nutjob to hurt anyone, nor did they tell the nutjob that it was OK to hurt people.  Quite the opposite, I imagine.  I've never been to gunsite but I have been to other training programs.  They go to great lengths to stress the responsibility that their training entails.  They go way out of their way to teach their trainees on what the laws are and how not to violate any of them.  They make a concerted effort to ensure that no harm comes to any innocent victim.

NAMBLA teaches that pedophilia and sexual assault is OK, that the laws against such are wrong and ought not be obeyed.  Let me say this as simply as possible:  NAMBLA encourage members to hurt innocents!!  Gunsite does NOT teach that murder or assault or battery is OK, nor does it teach that the laws against such should be violated.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Gunsite goes out of its way to discourage people from hurting innocents!! 

The distinction is so obvious that even an ACLU supporter should be able to understand it.  Tongue

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2007, 12:47:36 PM »
NAMBLA has a problem in that it is an advocacy group for folks who want to commit heinous, illegal acts.

The problem NABLA has was further exacerbated by the materials on their web site not only advocating heinous acts, but providing guides and instructions how to successfully commit those acts.  To be more specific: how to kidnap and rape children wihtout beig charged & convicted of kidnapping and child-rape.

To sum up NAMBLA's situation:
1. They advocate illegality
2. They provide how-to guides on the subjects of kidnapping and child-rape.
3. They provide guides on how to avoid legal repercussions

Now, for the firearms manufacturers to come anywhere near the level of moral responsibility and culpability, they would have to
1. Advocate something illegal, like murder-for hire with their wares ("Nothing says 'Execution-style slaying' like the Taurus HITMAN series of revolvers...")
2. Provide a guide on how to find customers who want you to murder someone for them as well as a how-to on murder
3. Detail how to kill for money while not rousing the wrath or notice of law enforcement

Folks who voluntarily work with the likes of NAMBLA need to be shunned by polite society.  This includes the ACLU scum whow helped them out.

BTW, I recall Soldier of Fortune beign sued for allowing a hitman classified ad & someone subsequently being murdered by the person who paid for the ad.  Where was the ACLU then?  Guess there were no kiddies to rape as a perk.

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2007, 12:59:35 PM »
Quote
Gunsite didn't encourage the nutjob to hurt anyone, nor did they tell the nutjob that it was OK to hurt people.
And NAMBLA didn't say "rape and murder." Whether you believe that's a subtext to their beliefs or not, it did not exist in any of their written materials.

Quote
Quite the opposite, I imagine.  I've never been to gunsite but I have been to other training programs.  They go to great lengths to stress the responsibility that their training entails.  They go way out of their way to teach their trainees on what the laws are and how not to violate any of them.  They make a concerted effort to ensure that no harm comes to any innocent victim.
So it would be absurd to sue them, right?

Quote
NAMBLA teaches that pedophilia and sexual assault is OK, that the laws against such are wrong and ought not be obeyed.
They teach that pederasty should be 'OK.' There is a difference.

But, again, though I tire of pointing this out: they weren't sued for their overall beliefs.

Quote
The distinction is so obvious that even an ACLU supporter should be able to understand it.
And hopefully you'll read the things I've reiterated multiple times.

But probably not.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2007, 01:01:15 PM »
This is a Constitutional republic.  51% of the popular vote cannot deprive the 49% of Constitutional civil liberties.  That's the theory anyways.  Theoretically, if a 'moral' issue had enough wide support, a Constitutional amendment could be ratified.  Last clear cut "moral" amendment was Prohibition.  That worked out real well.  A lot of folks believed it was wrong to let women or various minorities vote.  Heck, at one time, it was a very real, very "legitimate" and Constitutionally protected understanding that it was ok to own human beings and treat them as property.     

There are various legal arguments for prohibiting federal funds going towards private groups that practice discrimination.  Of course, if the BSA got the OK to get money while discriminating against gays, expect the KKK and other hate groups to line up for cash.  All or none, more than likely.  It's not about gays getting "special privileges", it's very clear.  If you are a private group that discrimates against a specific group, you should not get federal funding. 

I fail to see the downside, aside from wasting tax dollars.  But I do get VASTLY amused when certain folks harp on their money going towards things "sinful and wrong", but have no problem with public tax dollars going towards "faith based initatives".  Hey, I don't tax you to fund my drunken hedonistic religious rituals.  Don't try to tax me for YOUR entertainment.


Way off topic, but to those of you who believe a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (or any other civil right) is a good idea...  Remember this.  The Constitution protects the people and limits the government.  That is it's sole purpose.  Such an amendment would reverse the purpose of the Constitution, to limiting the rights of the people instead of protecting them.  That's a dark path.  It would end up going a direction you would not enjoy. 

"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2007, 01:02:37 PM »
Quote
BTW, I recall Soldier of Fortune beign sued for allowing a hitman classified ad & someone subsequently being murdered by the person who paid for the ad.  Where was the ACLU then?  Guess there were no kiddies to rape as a perk.
Never heard of the case.

But if the facts are as you laid them out - Soldier of Fortune was an intermediary in a murder-for-hire scheme. No different from "a guy who introduces a guy."

The only way this becomes a proper analogy is if two guys met while reading Soldier of Fortune and one hired the other as an assassin. Or they attended a Soldier of Fortune pizza party. Something like that where the magazine didn't have a direct role to play in the crime.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2007, 01:04:07 PM »
Quote
NAMBLA is just a bunch of people who endorse committing a horrible crime, and ought to be locked up. That's not free speech, it's conspiracy to commit crimes.
This may be true.

But what ACLU-bashers who've heard of one case don't seem to grasp is that NAMBLA's core ideology was irrelevant to the case in question. And while it's an uncomfortable position to take, we shouldn't ignore that fact just to make defending the ACLU easier.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2007, 01:20:48 PM »
I've read what you've posted.  I've thought about it.  I've considered it carefully.  I've concluded that your positions come up lacking, both in terms of rationality and in decency.

NAMBLA is a criminal organization.  They seeks out criminals as their members.  They teaches that it's OK to commit their pet crime.  They seek to change the law such that they can commit their crimes without penalty.  Their admitted desires are for these crimes to take place freely and frequently.   They may never have put pen to paper recording their intentions and actions toward this result, but their actions do lead inexorably to that result.  As such, I believe that NAMBLA is complicit in the perpetration the crimes of child abuse, pedophilia, and sexual assault.  They ought not be supported by the ACLU, or by the courts, or by anyone/anything else.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2007, 01:24:30 PM »
Quote
BTW, I recall Soldier of Fortune beign sued for allowing a hitman classified ad & someone subsequently being murdered by the person who paid for the ad.  Where was the ACLU then?  Guess there were no kiddies to rape as a perk.
Never heard of the case.

But if the facts are as you laid them out - Soldier of Fortune was an intermediary in a murder-for-hire scheme. No different from "a guy who introduces a guy."

The only way this becomes a proper analogy is if two guys met while reading Soldier of Fortune and one hired the other as an assassin. Or they attended a Soldier of Fortune pizza party. Something like that where the magazine didn't have a direct role to play in the crime.
SOF lost their case, BTW.

Anyway, the SOF case is not the main point, that being that a group that advocates illegality and provides how-to guides is a whole lot more culpable than a company that produces legal wares and advocates only the legal use of them.

That NAMBLA is more culpable, morally, is purt-near unquestionable (relative to, say gun-makers or knife-makers who advocate only legal use of legal items).  The big question after that is, "Are they legally culpable?"

The ACLU was not (in that case) advocating for kiddie-rape & kiddie porn, but they were aiding those who do.  They (ACLU) bear moral responsibility for those actions. 

Like I said, they ought not be fit for polite company.  It is not nice to enable chomos.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2007, 01:29:23 PM »
I'd be willing to bet that an animal-torture group that was sued for providing how-to guides after some guy's pet was tortured to death by a fellow who read & followed those guides could not count on the ACLU to take up their fight.

Kidnapping, raping, & filming kids getting raped: sympathetic enough to rouse the ACLU's legion of lawyers.

Torturing critters: Just too wong for the ACLU to touch
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2007, 01:57:35 PM »
Bringing this discussion back on topic, the ACLU is fighting culture war against the right.  As such, the news that a high-level ACLU patron was deeply involved in child pornography is noteworthy.  The story's downplay in the mainstream media puts the battle lines in stark contrast.  Leftists in the media, leftists in the ACLU, and progressives such as the gay rights movement and NAMBLA are shown to be in alliance.  Their enemy is shown to be conservative or religious organizations who take a moral stand in favor of traditional value and against sexual hedonism and deviance (such as the BSA). 

The way I see it, Christians have a right to form public organizations and seek public support on equal footing with non-Christians.  Homosexuals have the same right create public organizations and for those organizations to seek out public support.  Neither side has the right to restrict the other's free exercise of this right.  The ACLU stands selectively behind these rights for some, and against these rights for others.  The ACLU supports our liberties, so long as we all adhere to a liberal, politically correct, and progressive lifestyle. 

Where is the ACLU on the 2nd Ammendment?  Answer: on the leftist, statist side supporting gun control, to the detriment of the Constitution.

When was the last time the ACLU took down one of the myriad of constitutionally-abhorrent social programs the Fed illegally spends our tax dollars on?  Answer: they don't oppose social programs, despite their utter lack of constitutional authority.

When was the last time the ACLU stood up for the right of a straight, white, Christian, male to receive equal consideration for college entrance or job-promotion?  Answer:  they don't oppose limitations on the rights of boring, average Joes to receive equal treatment - they generally only support the rights of politically correct minorities.

When was the last time the ACLU supported a Christian organization's right to go about its business in public as freely as any non-religious organization?  Answer:  they oppose Christian organizations, under some contorted belief that the 1st Amendment calls for "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" in the name of "separation of church and state".

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #40 on: February 26, 2007, 02:46:33 PM »
Quote
NAMBLA is a criminal organization.  They seeks out criminals as their members.  They teaches that it's OK to commit their pet crime.
Actually, they don't encourage anyone to "commit their pet crime," much less murder. Which, again, was the focus of the lawsuit, wrongful death.

You are letting emotion get in the way of reason.

Quote
They ought not be supported by the ACLU, or by the courts, or by anyone/anything else.
And it's not. You're not catching on to that. The ACLU defended NAMBLA on legal principles, nothing more - the very specific belief that you can't be sued because two wackjobs read your magazine and accessed your website, even though no one can show a direct causal link between your magazine and website and the actions undertaken.

Just as Soldier of Fortune can't be sued because some militia-men get a couple of funny ideas.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #41 on: February 26, 2007, 02:47:00 PM »
Quote
I'd be willing to bet that an animal-torture group that was sued for providing how-to guides after some guy's pet was tortured to death by a fellow who read & followed those guides could not count on the ACLU to take up their fight.

Actually, the ACLU has, in the past, defended the act of ritual animal sacrifice, much less third-party involvement. Nice try, though.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2007, 02:51:08 PM »
Quote
SOF lost their case, BTW.
If the facts are as you've said, they should.

Quote
Anyway, the SOF case is not the main point, that being that a group that advocates illegality and provides how-to guides is a whole lot more culpable than a company that produces legal wares and advocates only the legal use of them.
The SOF case was not the point, I guess, because you're trying to draw a direct comparison between an intermediary in murder (with full knowledge of the ad being placed) and a situation where the plaintiff has absolutely no connection to the crime committed, other than its materials being present in the individual's belongings.

Quote
That NAMBLA is more culpable, morally, is purt-near unquestionable (relative to, say gun-makers or knife-makers who advocate only legal use of legal items).  The big question after that is, "Are they legally culpable?"
Bingo. Moral culpability is irrelevant to the ACLU, as it should be. The ACLU deals with the rule of law.

Quote
The ACLU was not (in that case) advocating for kiddie-rape & kiddie porn, but they were aiding those who do.  They (ACLU) bear moral responsibility for those actions.
No, the ACLU was advocating for due process. The plaintiff is irrelevant, be they the Klan or NAMBLA or Soldier of Fortune or Smith & Wesson.

Your argument is that we should simply disregard the basic rule of law because an organization you dislike is in the dock. That rights and liberties can be disregarded when they're inconvenient. One wonders how you feel when antis treat the 2nd in this manner.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2007, 02:56:38 PM »
Quote
The way I see it, Christians have a right to form public organizations and seek public support on equal footing with non-Christians.
Equal footing?

How many non-Christian Presidents have there been?
What percentage of the country self-identifies as Christian?
Which states discriminate Christians in, say, marriage? Adoption?
Which states bar Christian churches?
Has the IRS stripped all Christian chuches of their tax benefits?

Where is this wanton anti-Christian discrimination going on?

Quote
The ACLU stands selectively behind these rights for some, and against these rights for others.  The ACLU supports our liberties, so long as we all adhere to a liberal, politically correct, and progressive lifestyle.
Exactly where has the ACLU sought to deny Christians their right to assembly? Their right to speech? Gimme some cases here.

Oh, that's right: they haven't. Just as you can't specify exactly which anti-hetero discriminatory organizations are analgous to the Boy Scouts.

Because all of this exists in your head.

Quote
When was the last time the ACLU stood up for the right of a straight, white, Christian, male to receive equal consideration for college entrance or job-promotion?
Right, poor oppressed white men. We have it so tough, controlling all the wealth, every level of government, and the vast majority of churches. Poor, poor us.

You're so boring.

Quote
When was the last time the ACLU supported a Christian organization's right to go about its business in public as freely as any non-religious organization?  Answer:  they oppose Christian organizations, under some contorted belief that the 1st Amendment calls for "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" in the name of "separation of church and state".
This is simply nonsense. The ACLU has repeatedly supported Christian groups and their various Constitutional rights.

That it doesn't promote a Christian theocracy does not make the organization anti-Christian.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2007, 03:13:29 PM »
Bringing this discussion back on topic, the ACLU is fighting culture war against the right.  As such, the news that a high-level ACLU patron was deeply involved in child pornography is noteworthy.  The story's downplay in the mainstream media puts the battle lines in stark contrast.  Leftists in the media, leftists in the ACLU, and progressives such as the gay rights movement and NAMBLA are shown to be in alliance.  Their enemy is shown to be conservative or religious organizations who take a moral stand in favor of traditional value and against sexual hedonism and deviance (such as the BSA). 

Woah there.  First off, gay rights and NAMBLA are not the same, nor in alliance.  Most gays that I've spoken at length with, admittedly Pink Pistol types, have pretty typical attitudes towards child molesters.  (ie, shoot 'em)  They're not in any "culture war".  They want civil liberties, and some folks don't want 'em to have rights whatsoever.

NAMBLA is a front attempting to legalize an abusive activity.  They claim to want 'civil liberties', in reality, they want to sexually victimize unconsenting children.   

Big difference, mate.  In one case, a group of consenting adults want civil liberties and the right to be equal.  It's not my lifestyle, but I can appreciate wanting freedom.  It's what America is supposed to be about.  The other group is a group wanting to legalize literally destroying children.  It's as opposite as you can get.

You want to legislate religious doctrine, not "promote values".  Your prophet did not advocate using government coercion against people that disagreed with him.  As I recall, he very much disagreed with it.  He talked to many people and tried to convert them by making them want to convert of their own free will.  Ironically, he was killed by religious leaders who did favor government enforced religious coercion.  No one is stopping you from believing whatever you want to believe. 

The BSA is a cute ad lib, but the reality is that organizations that want to practice discrimination should not receive public funds.  If you feel differently, why don't you open your wallet instead of trying to open mine?  I prefer to donate my cash to GOA, NRA, etc. 

If you want to try to convince people to give up hedonism, go right ahead.  Heck, I'll buy the beer and popcorn.  It'd be vastly amusing.  If you want to make your religious doctrine the law of the land, that's another story.  With the exception of a couple of wackjobs who do want to stomp out all religion, folks just want to be left alone to live their lives as they please.  They'll all die in time, and settle accounts in the afterlife.  That's between them and whatever diety they choose. 
 


Quote
The way I see it, Christians have a right to form public organizations and seek public support on equal footing with non-Christians.  Homosexuals have the same right create public organizations and for those organizations to seek out public support.  Neither side has the right to restrict the other's free exercise of this right.  The ACLU stands selectively behind these rights for some, and against these rights for others.  The ACLU supports our liberties, so long as we all adhere to a liberal, politically correct, and progressive lifestyle. 

Where is the ACLU on the 2nd Ammendment?  Answer: on the leftist, statist side supporting gun control, to the detriment of the Constitution.

Christians do have a right to create any organization they want to.  They can SEEK any public support they want.  I don't know of any sane folks that argue differently.   The ACLU is a private organization.  If you don't like their views, don't donate.  If enough folks don't like their views, they run out of money and go away.  They're entitled to whatever opinion they want, stupid as many of them may be.


Quote
When was the last time the ACLU took down one of the myriad of constitutionally-abhorrent social programs the Fed illegally spends our tax dollars on?  Answer: they don't oppose social programs, despite their utter lack of constitutional authority.

When was the last time the ACLU stood up for the right of a straight, white, Christian, male to receive equal consideration for college entrance or job-promotion?  Answer:  they don't oppose limitations on the rights of boring, average Joes to receive equal treatment - they generally only support the rights of politically correct minorities.

And what is stopping you from creating an organization that fights for the rights of "straight, white, Christian, males" exclusively?  Start a PAC, try to raise funds, and take it from there.  No one's stopping you.  Obviously, folks who donate to the ACLU like the policies that the ACLU follows.  Not my cup of tea, but as long as they don't break any laws, I fail to see the bad side?


Quote
When was the last time the ACLU supported a Christian organization's right to go about its business in public as freely as any non-religious organization?  Answer:  they oppose Christian organizations, under some contorted belief that the 1st Amendment calls for "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" in the name of "separation of church and state".

And I'm sure the ACLU even remotely compares financially or numerically to the number of Christian organizations.  Again, what's your point?  That you don't like their policies?  They are fairly open about their opinions.  Fair as I know, they're not hiding anything.  You're making it out to sound like they're some evil conspiracy akin to a left-wing ZOG or whatever.  They have no more and no less power than any other private organization. 

And yes, unification of church and state does prohibit the free exercise of religion.  Just because the exact phrase "seperation of church and state" is not in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights does not mean that the 9th and 10th amendments do not exist. 

The Constitution spells out exactly the role and limitation of the federal government.  The Bill of Rights just enumerates a bunch of rights you have.  It is not the beginning nor the end of your civil rights.  Let me phrase it VERY clearly, the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

gunsmith

  • I forgot to get vaccinated!
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,192
  • I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #45 on: February 26, 2007, 05:08:57 PM »
woody.

I was a boy scout, it was obvious that some of my scoutmasters were gay.

He was not a pederast though.

There are no "God Hate Fags" merit badges, where did you get that?

Why do you hate the Boy Scouts so much? I don't understand.
Politicians and bureaucrats are considered productive if they swarm the populace like a plague of locust, devouring all substance in their path and leaving a swath of destruction like a firestorm. The technical term is "bipartisanship".
Rocket Man: "The need for booster shots for the immunized has always been based on the science.  Political science, not medical science."

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #46 on: February 26, 2007, 06:13:13 PM »
Why do you hate the Boy Scouts so much? I don't understand.
Because, contrary to their claims, the ACLU is more interested in perpetuating political correctness than in supporting anyones' civil liberties.  The Boy Scouts had the gall to think that, as an organization that benefits the community, they're entitled to public assistance on par with any other organization that benefits the community, regardless of their religious beliefs and affiliations.

Wooderson or RevDisk will no doubt be along shortly to explain why I've got it all wrong.  But the bottom line is that the ACLU won't leave the BSA alone until it caves in on its principles.  That the BSA's principles are constitutionally protected is irrelevant.  They must be forced to conform to the ACLU's singular definition of what is acceptable and unacceptable.

Such is the nature of political correctness and the culture war.  The various leftist groups (of which the ACLU is one) have decreed that anyone who doesn't hold to one particular arbitrary, narrow minded set of cultural norms and values is bigot.  And bigotry cannot be tolerated.

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #47 on: February 26, 2007, 07:32:16 PM »
Quote
The various leftist groups (of which the ACLU is one) have decreed that anyone who doesn't hold to one particular arbitrary, narrow minded set of cultural norms and values is bigot. 

I'd exchange "bigot" with "enemy to be discredited, marginalized, and destroyed" and then agree. Clearly, being a bigot is not the problem, because most leftists are bigots of one sort or another.

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #48 on: February 27, 2007, 09:33:18 AM »
Quote
I was a boy scout, it was obvious that some of my scoutmasters were gay.

He was not a pederast though.
And he would be drummed out today.

Quote
There are no "God Hate Fags" merit badges, where did you get that?
sigh...

Quote
Why do you hate the Boy Scouts so much? I don't understand.
I neither hate them nor love them - I simply don't care. They can prosper or wither and it makes not a bit of difference to me.

I do care when discriminatory organizations are funded by the state.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography
« Reply #49 on: February 27, 2007, 09:40:57 AM »
Quote
Because, contrary to their claims, the ACLU is more interested in perpetuating political correctness than in supporting anyones' civil liberties.  The Boy Scouts had the gall to think that, as an organization that benefits the community, they're entitled to public assistance on par with any other organization that benefits the community, regardless of their religious beliefs and affiliations.

The Boy Scouts aren't a religious organization (with the protections offered to explicitly religious organizations in terms of discrimination). Their "religious beliefs and affiliations" weren't an issue in the BSA case, as they have no specific beliefs or affiliations. The Boy Scouts do not, so far as I know, discriminate against Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc.. Well, not openly at least.

The Boy Scouts may think whatever they want - but as an organization that discriminates against a class of people on moral grounds, they don't deserve public funding. Just as an organization that discriminates against Christians, gun owners or African-Americans does not.

Quote
Wooderson or RevDisk will no doubt be along shortly to explain why I've got it all wrong.
'Twould be a waste of my time. You haven't bothered to provide any specifics to the questions posed, and based on your knowledge of the NAMBLA and BSA cases, your information on the ACLU and its activities is, shall we say, lacking.

Quote
But the bottom line is that the ACLU won't leave the BSA alone until it caves in on its principles.
I'm unaware of any ongoing cases involving the ACLU and BSA. Can you point me to them?

Quote
That the BSA's principles are constitutionally protected is irrelevant.
The BSA's right to 'hate fags' (see, still a joke, fellas) is constitutionally protected. The ACLU would undoubtedly agree with this.

You don't seem to grasp that the ACLU case was about funding by the state.

Quote
one particular arbitrary, narrow minded set of cultural norms and values is bigot.
There is some irony that a dude complaining about the war on Christians and defending discrimination against homosexuals, etc. is taking 'leftists' to task for an "arbitrary, narrow minded set of cultural norms and values."
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."