The ACLU - pros and cons

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

did you read hasty's post?



if you insist on dwelling on history there is quite a lot of negatives associated with spanish conquistadores, christian missionaries and their relationship with the native populations of that area... but we don't talk about that part, do we? what "actually happened"

the ACLU forces us to re-examine history from time to time... never a bad thing

From that view of history, BJ, I would say that it was the secularists who did all the "bad things" and you would have no evidence that it was not so.

History is wonderful if you can make it up as you go, just ask our old nemesis Adolph about it. He made it up and acted on it. Or, did he? Got any proof that is objective, extant, historical?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

if you insist on dwelling on history there is quite a lot of negatives associated with spanish conquistadores, christian missionaries and their relationship with the native populations of that area... but we don't talk about that part, do we? what "actually happened"

Yeah. I think in the name of tradition we should erect a statue of an indian being killed so we can take their land. Its a part of our HISTORY after all. Then maybe after that we can charge tax payers to put a picture of a slave being whipped on every state seal in the south. Tradition and all...

I dont really understand how anyone can sincerely argue that non believers should fund promotion of idols to anothers religion. It seems pretty elementary to me. And again I ask why cant these people just put up this stuff on their own property? Why force non believers to pay for it on public property? That is clearly imposition of a specific religion. The argument I heard made that basically 'well if you dont like it move out' is really quite frightening way of thinking if you ask me. And rather anti american...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

... b) it is voted by the majority to be okay (this would stop things like the KKK, but allow the less controversial)

I thought you guys were against majority rule ...

Originally Posted by hasty ent

Exactly. By funding the display of a religious scene on public property the government is taking a position. This argument will never end, and agreement will never be reached because it is not possible for the government to be both secular and religious. The two opposing sides here will never coexist happily. Believers claim that religious displays aren't forcing non-believers to convert, and non-believers claim that prohibiting religious displays doesn't restrict believers from private worship. It boils down to a public vs private expression argument. I've always felt that religion is something that should be observed in private, without government interference. However, it is my belief that with the empowerment of the religious right in the US since Reagan's administration, we have slowly been moving towards a theocracy. As an atheist this terrifies me no less than a believer's feeling of being persecuted for the expression of his/her faith.

Excellent post, Hasty. Good expression of both POVs. However, I don't see how we can be a true theocracy until the Second Coming but I imagine you mean an official Christian state or something like that. But I disagree that it took place during the Reagan administration as a new phenomena (if that's what you meant - maybe you didn't). I think it's been slowly dying down, and a resurgance took place during the Reagan era because Christians are tired of having rights that they had before taken away. They woke up and smelled the coffee, realizing that a few secularists with a mission could force their agenda on others in a big way.

I see how this trend could be frightening to you, and I'm glad you can how it's somewhat frightening to me, but fright isn't my major emotion - it's more a sense of watching a wrong being done by the strong to the weak. I'm not frightened of what secularists can do. I see what they're doing as a wrong that needs to be spoken out against and fought against, but if they win, that's how it goes. My destiny isn't bound up in what secularists do.

I think your sentence sums it up : "I've always felt that religion is something that should be observed in private, without government interference." Here's where we differ - I feel that our government is a representative one, and it should reflect the people that it represents, including expressions of belief if they so desire, from any type of belief. I think celebration and beliefs ARE a part of life, and it can be reflected by the government in things like 4th of July parades on public property and manger scenes on public property.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

Exactly. By funding the display of a religious scene on public property the government is taking a position.

No, I don't think so - I think they're reflecting the hearts of the people that they represent.

Originally Posted by brownie

as far as "denying where we came from"... not all americans have a christian past so your "we" is a bit inaccurate to say the least

Wouldn't you agree that our country has a Judeo-Christian background in general? Or do you think it's more of an Islamic background, or perhaps Buddhist? No one is saying that EVERYONE in America has a Judeo-Christian background, but IMO to deny that that's our basic background is really putting your head in the sand

Question for all - do you guys think the carving of Moses holding the 10 commandments on the front of the Supreme Court buildling of the United States of America should be sandblasted off?

Originally Posted by IRex

Yeah. I think in the name of tradition we should erect a statue of an indian being killed so we can take their land. Its a part of our HISTORY after all. Then maybe after that we can charge tax payers to put a picture of a slave being whipped on every state seal in the south. Tradition and all...

I don't understand this - aren't seals generally things that are unique and good? Sure, I suppose we could have a bad stuff seal, too, but why? And what we're arguing against is that OTHER things on the seal are about historical stuff, so why not missions? (which were not all good by any means, as it clearly says in my kids' history books in the Christian school they attend.) And if you decide to put a mission on the seal, then why not make it look like missions look, i.e., with a cross on it? (however, in terms of religion, a Costco building is prob. more appropriate now, anyway ... )

I dont really understand how anyone can sincerely argue that non believers should fund promotion of idols to anothers religion.

How is a cross an idol? And anyway, there are things that my tax money is spent on that promote secularist "idols". No one will like ALL the way that their tax money is spent. Let the people of the county of Los Angeles decide. I hope the movement to restore the seal is successful.

The argument I heard made that basically 'well if you dont like it move out' is really quite frightening way of thinking if you ask me. And rather anti american...

But if you don't like living in a country that is primarily Christian and likes to express it, then I imagine that should be a serious option. If I lived in a primarily Muslim country where they liked to express it, I would consider moving out. To me, it seems like the secularists that are fighting this type of stuff are very intolerant of others around them. They are NOT forced to believe anything.

[Rían]

Now here's an interesting ACLU thing - what do you guys think about the ACLU defending a person's "right" to make virtual child porn?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Wouldn't you agree that our country has a Judeo-Christian background in general? Or do you think it's more of an Islamic background, or perhaps Buddhist? No one is saying that EVERYONE in America has a Judeo-Christian background, but IMO to deny that that's our basic background is really putting your head in the sand

our founders took the dieistic pov, belief in "god" as a concept, without specification of a particular belief system... we see this from both the "liberal" (jefferson) and conservative (adams) sides

[Rían]

and how do you explain the statue of Moses holding the 10 commandments smack dab in the center of the Supreme Court building?

I agree with you to a certain degree that SOME of the founders took a generic deistic POV, but I still would say that to deny that our country's general background is Judeo-Christian is pretty ... well, incorrect.


Any comments on the virtual child porn thing? Is that a freedom of speech that should be protected?

[HOBBIT]

I assume that this is what you are talking about:

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/1...g20020508.html

Their position seems pretty clear - to protect our civil liberties. Protect First Amendment. They don't advocate child porn of course. Don't be silly.

The ACLU opposes child pornography that uses real children in its depictions. Material, however, which is produced without using real children, and is not otherwise obscene, is protected under the First Amendment. H.R. 4623 attempts to ban this protected material....

[HOBBIT]

Read this:


How The ACLU Didn't Steal Christmas

[Rían]

I said virtual child porn - are you just fine with that, Hobbit?

I read half of your first link - will have to finish later. I've read the second before and think it's quite one-sided.

[HOBBIT]

Take your time Yes, the first link deals with virtual child porn.

[Rían]

but what is YOUR opinion on it? Do you think making realistic virtual child porn and/or selling it should be a form of protected free speech?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and how do you explain the statue of Moses holding the 10 commandments smack dab in the center of the Supreme Court building?

I agree with you to a certain degree that SOME of the founders took a generic deistic POV, but I still would say that to deny that our country's general background is Judeo-Christian is pretty ... well, incorrect.

i'm not denying it, just clairifying it... i also believe that while the founding fathers did incredibly well for people of their time, their is always room for improvement (as the many amendments to the constitution has shown)

the statue of moses in the supreme court building is fine by me... it represents one of the many sources of our legal system, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if it was removed either

what makes our country work is our laws and the people who enforce and preserve them, not where they came from

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

but what is YOUR opinion on it? Do you think making realistic virtual child porn and/or selling it should be a form of protected free speech?

i have mixed feelings... i don't particular like the idea, but i don't like the KKK either... yet, if someone wanted to make a video game where you go around lynching african americans, i would certainly find it very offensive, but i don't know if i would outlaw it if i had the power

a society has to make laws against actions we deem evil, but it is more difficult when it comes to thoughts... i think that when we try to supress them, we often make them more powerful... allowing something like virtual child porn might at least keep those who are obsessed by such a thing from taking their obsession into the real world, much like allowing the KKK to demonstrate lets them vent their evil thoughts as opposed to actually expressing them in actions

the obvious argument against this is that it would encourage real life expression of this kind of evil... but i think this kind of evil stems from how one is brought up, not something they come across as an adult, and it's existance is not going to encourage anyone who finds such a thing evil anymore than it's supression would discourage someone who does not

it's a very difficult issue and i am not 100% sure where i stand on it, but i don't think it is a bad thing that the ACLU has brought the debate up... i think it is a good thing

[The Gaffer]

That's a toughie. My instinct is that it is gross and shouldn't be allowed.

Isn't it odd though, how it would be OK to have a computer game with virtual murder but not one with virtual kiddy fiddling?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That's a toughie. My instinct is that it is gross and shouldn't be allowed.

Isn't it odd though, how it would be OK to have a computer game with virtual murder but not one with virtual kiddy fiddling?

exactly

[The Gaffer]

PS - In the UK, making a kiddie porn game would probably already be illegal here in the UK.

PPS - I came across this today and it seemed relevant to this thread:

http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-anno...2491&subj=news

Eeek! * runs out to change RL name by deed poll to The Gaffer *

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i have mixed feelings... i don't particular like the idea, but i don't like the KKK either... yet, if someone wanted to make a video game where you go around lynching african americans, i would certainly find it very offensive, but i don't know if i would outlaw it if i had the power

They already have this. And they have one called "Suicide Bomber" where you are a palastinian terrorist with dynamite strapped to you and you go around killing jews in Isreal. Really wacked out stuff. But the thing is that they only exist essentially underground. They wont be carried by a retail outlet and wouldnt garner many sales even if they were. So in a way our capitalist system does its own natural censoring just based on the fact we find that stuff highly offensive as a society. Its just wrong to outlaw it.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Isn't it odd though, how it would be OK to have a computer game with virtual murder but not one with virtual kiddy fiddling?

yeah - I wonder why? Thoughts?

Here's a wild one - perhaps it's because there are some forms of "acceptable" killing, such as shooting someone coming after your kids with a knife. I'm not aware of ANY acceptable forms of child molestation.

[Spock]

A lways/ always
C odling / changing
L iberals / laws
U nquestionly /un-intelligently