muddyboots wrote:
probably is a better beerbust talk. But I stand by what I said. You keep claiming that the 14th is being twisted, but it's a pretty clear Amendement--much easier to decipher than the second. It's basic tenant is pretty simple: we all have the same rights and no citizen may be deprived of them. As far as I kow, the ACLU has never professed anything but that. I'd be interested to know how you think they've twisted that, especially since it's such a clear and concise passage.
When taken to any extreme at the expense of the collective good, individual rights can be harmful. Now please don't twist that to mean that I think we should be in a dictatorship, on the contrary.
For the ACLU, it's not enough to say "we can all practice whatever religion we want to" - they want to say, "We can practice Satanism" "We can practice Judaism" "We can practice atheism" "We can practice Catholicism" "We can practice groupsexism" "We can practice whateverism" They're not happy until they have enunciated each & every right, they tie up the courts, they waste taxpayers dollars proving the obvious, & in the process are pushing an agenda of multi-cultural, secular (to the extreme), "progressive" government - in short, they are trying to overthrow our existing form of government through the legal process.
They do it through fear; the fear of being labeled a hater. They say, "Look at these people, they are being denied rights, it's because they are green with purple stripes, we need to have a law that says green with purple striped people must be protected." If you dare speak out against them, you're labled a green-and-purple-striped-phobe who is filled with hatred & wants to oppress these poor green & purple striped people.
There is no context.
I will concede that they have done some good in their quest for their version of the perfect socieity. For example, I believe they recently fought for Veterans to have Wiccan symbols on headstones in National Cemetaries. (Just the most recent thing to pop in my head) Now I'm not a Wiccan, nor do I know any (that I know of), but this falls squarely into religious freedom. But if you delve deeper into this, I doubt the Feds really care what's on a headstone, but somehow it got codified & the Wiccans got left out. I'm sure it went something like this:
Fed: You can engrave name, dates, and XX characters of text if related to federal service, and a relgious symbol.
Someone: Can we have a cross?
Fed: Yes a cross would be fine.
Someone else: What about a Star of David?
Fed: Yes, yes - a Star of David too. Anymore questions?
Scribe: OK, got it.
Unfortunately, there were no Wiccans around to ask if they could have a Pentacle. Enter the ACLU.
The moral of the story is, once you start enumerating specifics, you have to cover literally everything or else you risk excluding someone. If you exclude someone, maybe the ACLU will take up your fight if you're offended enough. Maybe they'll take up your fight if they're offended FOR you (my favorite) even if you don't care.
What really should happen in the parody above is all enumerations should be excluded & the original context should be restored. "A religious symbol" perhaps with some minor elaboration "...as desired by NOK" & everyone is happy, the courts get to deal with real crimes, & the ACLU has to figure out another way to push their exclusionist society.
Despite the fact they do manage to do some good, that does not mean they do not have a political agenda & are pushing that agenda via litigation.
There already exists a process to effect change in our government, it's called a ballot box. No government will make everyone happy & when enough people are unhappy, the government changes. This is called democracy & while it's not foolproof, it works reasonably well. If it moves too slowly, don't litigate, move! The "instant gratification" social setting we find ourselves in can't seem to wait for that & the needs of the few seem more important than the needs of the greater majority. Which brings us back to social contract theory - you want to live here, you live by the rules. If you're not happy with the rules, or the way they're enforced, change the government - vote.
muddyboots wrote:
Not sure how all this can be construed as "twisting the constitution". Especially since all were Supreme Court cases and were won by the ACLU. But then, that leads us to another topic: how the courts have taken over the legslative process and turned America into a nation where it's dangerous to be a white male or a child. Oooooh those nasty judges, reading things into the constitution that were never intended to be there in the first place. Like the right to basic civl rights. darn. If the Congress had intended people to actually have RIGHTS, they would of said so somewhere, right?
Oh wait. They made an amendment.
Are you sure you haven't been using your copy of the constitution as a coffe coaster? I know I do that with my Janes Armored vehicles. It would be an easy mistake to make
Ignoring the sarcasm & insults, I can only assume I've failed to convey my point effectively.
I used to think I was arrogant. I thought if I could just explain what I know, lay out the going-in assumptions & points of view, logically, the other person would have no recourse but to come to the same conclusion as I. Therefore, when I failed to convince someone of something that seems so obvious to me, it was a failing on my part; a lack of eloquence perhaps. If after several attempts, I was still unsuccessful, it could only be because my logic was superior; hence my arrogance. But I've grown to realize there are some hard-wiring differences between people - as hard as that is to imagine. I guess it's like being left-handed or right-handed. Sadly, the world is lacking many ambidextrous people (I know I'm not one).
I'll likely retire from this discourse as I am failing to make my point (and I won't resort to slower & louder).
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
