ACLU where?

[Conservative Front]

I though that this was rather interesting. I was watching the news early today and I learned that a Judge I believe it was stopped issuing ALL marriage license in a county in Oregon now what I'm curious about is that the ACLU is fighting to allow Gay Marriage but where are they when Straight people can't get Married because a judge disagrees with a law Isn't that Unconsitiunal and violates the rights of Straight people who want to get married I'm just a little curious when there going to step in and fight for marriage instead of just picking sides and ignoring the Rights of Straight people.

[humanhybrid]

Its not where the ACLU is, but its where we dont want our goverment, IN OUR BEDS TELLING US WHO, WHAT COLOR and what nationality that our choice should be. Am I for gay rights? I am for human rights. What one does behind closed doors and is consentual is ones own personal right. As far as marriage goes, it doesnt matter, because their not in my bed. Its only those fanatical christians whinning again. good day!

[MetalMilitia]

I was watching the news early today and I learned that a Judge I believe it was stopped issuing ALL marriage license in a county in Oregon now what I'm curious about is that the ACLU is fighting to allow Gay Marriage but where are they when Straight people can't get Married because a judge disagrees with a law Isn't that Unconsitiunal and violates the rights of Straight people who want to get married I'm just a little curious when there going to step in and fight for marriage instead of just picking sides and ignoring the Rights of Straight people.

That's the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen.

-MM- :crs:

[DontBeAfraid]

Why dont you call a representative from the aclu and ask them to take a stand on the issue, marriage for all or marriage for none. You didnt even look into whether the aclu is already involved in this matter, you just assumed they arent.

[dutchie]

Bah! Are we doing this gay marriage discussion thing all over again?!?

Homophobics of this world: get married and STFU. All gays: do the same and STFU.

Everyone: find a partner that you can love and care for the rest of your life. It's not marriages that are the problem: it's DIVORCES!!

:grin

[Conservative Front]

If We Remove "one man, one woman" from the definition of marriage, doesn't that open the door to calling any relationship a marriage? It's not about intolerance or being judgmental, its about the truth.

---end response to humanhybrid---

I did check into and the ACLU is not taking the case. I didn't assume anything the ACLU is refusing to take this case as of right now.

---end response to dontbeafraid---

[dutchie]

If We Remove "one man, one woman" from the definition of marriage, doesn't that open the door to calling any relationship a marriage? It's not about intolerance or being judgmental, its about the truth.

That's comparing horses with bricks. The truth about WHAT?

---end response to Conservative Front---

why not respond to my post?

[MacRasta]

Dutchie..... you just got into something...... :crazy:

Mac

[Defiant Noquisi]

Dutchie..... you just got into something...... LOL yeah he did! He will liven things up a bit!

BTW, maybe I should just up and marry my sister so I can come here and stick it CF's face. Yeah, I can do that for everytime he brings up the "one man/one woman" bs. Hell, she aint a bad looking broad. :Blbl:

Yes MM, he would like us to see his opinion as educated, but I cant get passed him not using commas and periods. That sentance format (and arrogance) is about the equivalent to a 7 year old.

Thanks Dutchie, this has got to be the most phenominal answer to it....

Homophobics of this world: get married and STFU. All gays: do the same and STFU.

Everyone: find a partner that you can love and care for the rest of your life. It's not marriages that are the problem: it's DIVORCES!!

Then again, I dont always see divorce as a problem since the divorce was the best part of my marriage. The problem is assholes that stick their nose into other people's lives and say its wrong or want to regulate it in someway. :bs:

[Defiant Noquisi]

why not respond to my post? Get used to that Dutchie, either that or the words and/or meaning of it will be changed in some way as to render it a tool for conservative purpose.

[Conservative Front]

If you wanted to redefine marriage I guess you could try to marry bricks and horse's.

---end response to dutchie--

Yep, Marrying you're sister sounds like it would fit you're agenda.

and a 7 year old? Ok. What you think is what you think. I could careless if you take me serious you're hypocrisy denouce's you're credibility more then my poor grammar ever could.

---end response to defiant---

[dutchie]

If you wanted to redefine marriage I guess you could try to marry bricks and horse's.

---end response to dutchie--

Yep, Marrying you're sister sounds like it would fit you're agenda.

and a 7 year old? Ok. What you think is what you think. I could careless if you take me serious you're hypocrisy denouce's you're credibility more then my poor grammar ever could.

---end response to defiant---
Ooohh, look, our CF is getting all upset!!! Glad you realised that resorting to stupid replies is ALWAYS an option when all others are gone.... Makes our life so much easier...

[DontBeAfraid]

Since when is a seven year old a consenting adult?
Since when is a dog a consenting adult?
Since when is a strawman a consenting adult?(right over your head I know)

[Defiant Noquisi]

and a 7 year old? Ok. What you think is what you think. I could careless if you take me serious you're hypocrisy denouce's you're credibility more then my poor grammar ever could. Thats doubtful since Im not the one getting spanked for my grammar. My son uses better grammar than you and he certainly doesnt get over-emotional when being corrected on it. I can just imagine you having a flat tire and then yelling at the good samaritan who stops to offer assistance.

[lotrfan55345]

GOOD, less than 12 this time. :D


an just imagine you having a flat tire and then yelling at the good samaritan who stops to offer assistance.

I know people in school who get mad if you help them with something, I wonder what they will be like when they grow up. :alien: :wink:

[substand]

I think its a valid question and point. One of the major problems I see with the American Civil Liberties Union is that they are almost always only "for" leftists' ideas of civil liberties. Their filing of an amicus breif on behalf of Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding, they seem always to fight for the "right to be free from prayer" and never the right to pray... the right to marry for homosexuals but not heterosexuals... the right to ban religious books, but never the right to ban "anti religious" books...

They do take cases every once in a while that don't fit the overall mold (for example, a case in which the state of Missouri denied a person the license plate "Aryan1" and the Limbaugh example)... however these cases don't get near the coverage as thier left wing ones, IMO, and seem to be damage control to keep an element of evenhandedness about them.

Keep in mind, thats without research. If someone has done some research (or wants to do some) and would like to refute the point made that the ACLU takes left wing cases more often than anything else (of similar issues), I think that would be beneficial.

I've often changed directions in a thread, but (and I may be wrong here) I don't think I've ever done it so blatantly as to say "Its not where the ACLU is, but its where we dont want our goverment."

Perhaps CF was just leading us in that direction as if the ACLU not taking a case to defend the majority is proof enough that gay marriage shouldn't exist. But that statement was akin (as I read it) to something like "who cares about the point of your post, what really matters is that we should allow gay people to get married, and its not even worth asking why the American Civil Liberties Union only cares about gay marriage and not straight marriage."

[Defiant Noquisi]

they seem always to fight for the "right to be free from prayer" and never the right to pray... the right to marry for homosexuals but not heterosexuals... the right to ban religious books, but never the right to ban "anti religious" books... It is my understanding that the ACLU takes cases in that whatever is occuring would be considered in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights. Therefore they jump in to defend or fight against that action or occurence. Sorry, Im generalizing and this is coming off the hip but it is what I am understanding from your post.

Just going by what I understand, Im assuming that in relation to the prayer comment, prayer and not being exposed to it are both protected. Since there are various places one can go to for prayer and be free to do so, prayer is protected. I see people praying in parks and restaurants and that is protected. If one chooses to not pray, they dont have to go to a place of worship or prayer at any other time and their right to do so is protected. Since places of worship and people worshipping in public places goes on, I dont see how it is not protected.

I personally draw the line at public institutions for example, schools. Since they are government regulated, prayer should not be allowed in order to uphold the seperation of church and state.

The right of homosexuals to marry. I dont think the government should have any regulation over this one in either regard. If homosexuals want to marry fine, let them. People of opposite sexes already have the right to marry so I really dont understand why you added this in your post.

Banning religious books, Im really not sure where this one is coming from either but I am assuming the same as the schools I mentioned above. However, there have been alot of book bannings going around with other types of books as well and support by the government was asked for. I dont consider the "Harry Potter" books religious, they arent anti-religious either, but many Christians wanted those books banned. Books shouldnt be banned at all under any circumstance.


Keep in mind, thats without research. If someone has done some research (or wants to do some) and would like to refute the point made that the ACLU takes left wing cases more often than anything else (of similar issues), I think that would be beneficial. I think I will do that. You do bring up an interesting point. Ill put together something to send off but before I do I would like you to add or clarify the above commentary Ive made so I have a better idea of what I am going to ask for.

[substand]

It is my understanding that the ACLU takes cases in that whatever is occuring would be considered in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights. Therefore they jump in to defend or fight against that action or occurence. Sorry, Im generalizing and this is coming off the hip but it is what I am understanding from your post.

I think that sounds accurate.


Just going by what I understand, Im assuming that in relation to the prayer comment, prayer and not being exposed to it are both protected. Since there are various places one can go to for prayer and be free to do so, prayer is protected. I see people praying in parks and restaurants and that is protected. If one chooses to not pray, they dont have to go to a place of worship or prayer at any other time and their right to do so is protected. Since places of worship and people worshipping in public places goes on, I dont see how it is not protected.

Well certainly that sounds right. But both prayer and lack of forced prayer being protected, one would think that the ACLU would fight for the right to pray just like they would fight for the right to not be forced to pray, say if a public school held a prayer each morning in which all students had to participate, else they would be disciplined.


I personally draw the line at public institutions for example, schools. Since they are government regulated, prayer should not be allowed in order to uphold the seperation of church and state.

Perhaps that is where the ACLU draws the line as well. But you see, there is nothing in the constitution that separates church and state except to say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" So basically congress cannot establish a state religion, nor can it make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If it is against the law for me to pray in my school if I want to, and I am not even asking anyone else to pray, much less forcing them to, obviously this prevents the free exercise of religion, to me. What if I want to pray silently? In any case, I would think that if an organ of the government told me when and where I could pray, or even if I could pray- that is prime territory for the ACLU, just as it would be if the government told people they HAD to pray, and when and where they would do it.


Banning religious books, Im really not sure where this one is coming from either but I am assuming the same as the schools I mentioned above.

It was actually referring to the lack of bibles and the proliferation of harry potter books in schools. I dont know if it was an actual case, though. I also meant it as a joke- and that neither class of books should be banned in school. Now, you could probably make a good case to me that safe sex books should not be in 1st graders' library, and probably up to at LEAST middle school (and probably later mid shcool)... but its retarded to ban religious books in school as it is harry potter, imo... and I would think if the ACLU wanted to fight for the right to ban some books, they should fight for the right to ban all books. We can have the real fahrenheight 451.

[DontBeAfraid]

Subs nobody is stopping anybody from praying anywhere in any public school. They only stop the schools/leaders/groups from endorsing it. You can pray silently all you want, or even out loud if it isnt a disturbance to those around you. Its never been illegal to pray in school or anywhere, but somehow I think you already knew this.

[substand]

Subs nobody is stopping anybody from praying anywhere in any public school. They only stop the schools/leaders/groups from endorsing it. You can pray silently all you want, or even out loud if it isnt a disturbance to those around you. Its never been illegal to pray in school or anywhere, but somehow I think you already knew this.

my point isn't neccesarily whether it is illegal or legal, but was only a generality that i get from whats around me about the ACLU. I didn't mean it to be that it is illegal or not- just that the ACLU seems to often take cases where it might be able to take religion out of schools, but rarely if ever takes a case on behalf of someone who might be denied religious rights or free speech about religion in schools.

But about the prayer in school by an individual- there are plenty of valedictorians who were not allowed by thier schools to say things like "I'd like to thank Jesus for my being here" and other similar things- not even praying, but just the mention of religion in a public manner. The ACLU puts it like you cannot "force people to listen" because if you are at school and someone hears you, presumably you are forcing them to listen. In any case, I found this great ACLU site where they have talking points and soundbites for people to use in debate on tons of issues... so we have it here at: http://archive.aclu.org/clis/schoolprayer.html

we can see how they feel on a wide range of issues, straight from the horses mouth. (edit: this site is on civil liberties in schools, but maybe we can find similar talking points for all issues)

[DontBeAfraid]

Allowing them to "thank jesus" in school sanctioned/produced activities and speeches is the endorsement of a religion by the school. If the valedictorian wants to thank jesus on their own he/she is free to do so.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Wow subs, that second post regarding the valedictorian really nailed for me how Im going to format my inquiry. I do understand where you are coming from on it however, Im with DBA. I hope this is a cool inquiry, Ill post what I type up. Wont be tonight but it may be this weekend. Lots to do tonight. Thanks both of you. :grin

[substand]

dn- thats cool.. keep in mind the question posited to us by CF was "where's the aclu?" i took it a little further by specifying a range of issues that i think they are more liberal than conservative on similar issues (i didn't specify THE range, but only that there is one)... so don't try to prove ME wrong, i already stated my opinion was based on generalities =) so we should try to show which, if any, direction they lean (because my generality based opinion should be easy to disprove with specific examples such as the "ARYAN1" license plate I mentioned).



Allowing them to "thank jesus" in school sanctioned/produced activities and speeches is the endorsement of a religion by the school. If the valedictorian wants to thank jesus on their own he/she is free to do so.


Those 2 sentances are complete contradictions of each other, unless in the first sentance you imply or assume that the school is requiring me to thank God (or mention God) in my speech.

Obviously it is wrong for the school to require me to, but for me to do it by my own accord like you mention in the 2nd sentance? Again, please clarify.

Taking both together to me is contradictory without the above assumption. For example, suppose I write a paper that mentions God for English class... that is certainly in a school sanctioned/produced event, and even required. However, am I wrong to do it? Suppose the question we are writing the paper on is "what did you do this summer?" and all I did was attend church camp. Then suppose part of the assignment is to give a speech to class what you did last summer?

Further, what if in the same speech (graduation), I say something akin to "Possibly inspired by Aries, I made war on laziness and studied my heart out to make good grades... we should all make war, like Aries, on laziness to get good grades in college... We could all use the wisdom of Athena to take the time to study instead of party." what would happen then?

[Defiant Noquisi]

Oh Im not trying to prove anyone wrong, Im curious as to what their answers would be.

Now if I could only get you in the chatroom at a decent hour or on IM so I can hear ya callin' I could ask you more. :P

[DontBeAfraid]

Hmm, I dont see how they are contradicting. The speaker can thank jesus on his/her way to the podium(sp) and give a speech without doing it again. Thanking jesus on your own accord is not thanking jesus during a school endorsed speech.

If you went to bible camp you can write and talk about how you learned more of your religion without preaching.... IE you can mention learning about jesus without thanking jesus. Writing a paper about HOW you learned of god quite alright and quite different than writing a paper about WHAT you learned of god, which would not be a good assignment for a teacher at a public school to hand out.

About your second scenario, greek mythology is no longer a relgion.... Its mythology and when mentioned as you have/would it is assumed that you are not seriuosly endorsing it religiously but more anecdotely(sp) or artistically.... If it makes a comeback as a seriuos religion though then it will also move into the area of thanking jesus.

I dont know if im making the lines any clearer.... they really are razer thin.

[substand]

instead of "what did you do this summer?" what if the question also stipulated "and how did it affect you?" ... its not at all a bad assignment, its a good way to get students to get to know each other and see how everyone has grown over the summer at the beginning of the school year.

I guess i just think its silly to say that a school must endorse and does endorse student speech by the simple account of the student having said something. It seems like a simple "The opinions expressed by the speaker do not reflect those of the school, the school board, or any of the teachers or employees or students of the school" would be obvious without having to be stated.

[DontBeAfraid]

The second part of your question still doesnt effect how it can be answered PC.

If the opinions expressed by the speaker dont reflect those of anybody related to the school then there is no need for the speaker.... schools already have enough "commercials".... Public schools already have seminary classes that dont count for credits where kids can go thank jesus en mass if they are too weak to keep their personal beleifs to themselves.

[substand]

The second part of your question still doesnt effect how it can be answered PC.

a minor point really, but certainly someone who went to church camp might answer like "i went to church camp and learned about how jesus died for all our sins so we could go to heaven."


If the opinions expressed by the speaker dont reflect those of anybody related to the school then there is no need for the speaker

just a few examples of publications with a phrase like "the opinions expressed are not representative of ..." and thus there would be no need for the contributions...

www.ftc.gov/be/workpapers/hoskenreiffenmatsa.pdf
www.usdoj.gov/ust/press/articles/abi00maynumbers.pdf
ethics.wa.gov/
edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ fun.games/08/05/knights.pirates/

I'm sure you get the idea that what I'm trying to say is that unless all writers own thier own forums, there is no need for the writer because the publisher does not neccesarily want the opinion attached to them. Most of the time it goes without saying. As in, I assume that the opinions expressed in your posts are yours, and I don't purposely attribute them to others on the board or the board itself. And in my mind it should be obvious that a student speaking is not speaking on behalf of the government. Under strict rules, George Bush (and every other president) should be outlawed from professing thier faith in God publicly (or even going to church), simply because as the acting president, speaking on behalf of the nation, he would make us all accept his religion as our own. Silly, no?

[DontBeAfraid]

That answer given is really not the answer to how it affected them, although it is probably the answer that some little biblethumper fresh out of camp is going to preach.

The links you provided dont blur the seperation of church and state so they dont help make any point other than the fact that they help their publishers make money whether or not the publishers agree with what the writers have to say. Schools dont typically make money at functions involving speeches, they usually have to pay the speaker so what the speaker has to say better reflect the views of the school... If its the opposite and there is any reason for the school to preface the speaker with "the views expressed ...." then its just a commercial and really should not be allowed.

We know that on forums where there is a back and forth debate type of dialog that it would be almost impossible for every members opinion to represent that of the forum management so like you said its obvious that they dont. If however they published ones opinions to a blog or somewhere else on the site then it would be assumed that the opinions do reflect those of the management unless they used a disclaimer.... We are drifting from relevence(sp), is that your MO?

The presidents speech isnt always sponcered by the nation, only at government sponcered speeches.... He really shouldnt thank jesus at these speeches because those are on behalf of the country. He does have his own time and money however which he can use to represent himself individualy, in public or private(just like everyone has the right to do), on things like supporting his religion of choice, or even who he might let suck his dick.... On his own time its none of my business unless he wants it to be.... I dont know if you are honestly confused or just dressing up strawmen again, with this last comparison that is.

[substand]

That answer given is really not the answer to how it affected them, although it is probably the answer that some little biblethumper fresh out of camp is going to preach.

"what did you learn," is equivalent to "how did it affect you" (in the question I posited (in my mind) )... and maybe it is only a biblethumper who would say it... but who cares? my point is that just because a student says it does not mean the school or government endorses it. I apologize for being anal/semantical about the wording, but you are forcing me to because you refuse to allow a school the freedom to “not endorse" anything students say (in their capacity as students) just because they said it. I guess in trying to prove how ridiculous the thought of assigning sponsorship based on the fact of it being said, I've gotten a bit ridiculous myself.


The links you provided dont blur the seperation of church and state

no they don't, and they weren't meant to... they were meant merely as a small example of how "if the opinions expressed by the speaker dont reflect those of anybody related to the school then there is no need for the speaker," then replacing "school" with "anything else" shows that there is never a need for a speaker.


If however they published ones opinions to a blog or somewhere else on the site then it would be assumed that the opinions do reflect those of the management unless they used a disclaimer.... We are drifting from relevence(sp), is that your MO?

My point is only that we are splitting hair in this debate about whether a student can thank or "worship" god or not publicly. In my view, it is retarded to think that just because a student does it that the entire government "endorses" it (or “establishes religion” or “prohibits free exercise thereof”. As a side note, I think its just as retarded for a Buddhist not being allowed to talk about his Buddhist teachings (or thank them), or a Muslim, or Jew, or an Atheist to do the same in the same situation.


He does have his own time and money however which he can use to represent himself individualy, in public or private(just like everyone has the right to do), on things like supporting his religion of choice, or even who he might let suck his dick.... On his own time its none of my business unless he wants it to be.... I dont know if you are honestly confused or just dressing up strawmen again, with this last comparison that is.

I'm not confused nor am I making scarecrows. I purposely used the example of a president because, of all people, he is the one who has the least chance to be private in his duties. Thus, while it is certainly possible to pray or thank jesus or allah or yahweh or any other modern "deity," in private and thus not represent a religion in public, under the rules you've established (as far as I can tell), but mostly the rules the ACLU talks about (see the post on the previous page i think, for the link) the president cannot go to church. The ACLU says something like "teachers can choose their own religion and follow it, but they cannot show it when acting under the capacity of govt" ... thus they cannot post 10 commandments on thier desk, they cannot show their religion in public where they work (or in their work, like on a field trip, say) ... however, the pres is always acting as president when in public (and of course, sometimes when not in public, but not in public doesn't matter here). Since when he is in public, he is acting a pres, he cannot go to church because that would be an endorsement of religion while acting as a government worker.

[DontBeAfraid]

On this issue the hairs must be split because the line is razor thin. The school may be ignorant to what a student may decide to put in a report, in those situations(like asking a bible thumper what he did over the summer) you can assume the veiws in the report arent always going to be those of the school and that the kid is just being preachy. However in instances where the school knows and can regulate whats going to be said they have to be careful not to let anything they dont endorse be endorsed. I know I took the hard line on this in previous posts but only because I know that the hard line is not beyond becoming a reality and it would be too easy for corrupt officials to just claim ignorance everytime a student endorses a religion without the schools knowledge.

The president may always be "on call" but he certainly isnt always on duty.... even when out in public. He is capable of acting as the george bush, president of the US, at certain times and acting as george bush, citizen of the US, at others.... whether we can see him or not. I have looked at your link and I agree with what I read... I beleive you are purposely blurring the meanings of their statements to (give more weight?) to your side.

[mickydoolittle]

Mmkk...so they arrested a significant number of criminals, but just not the type of criminals they were intending to arrest....click the link damnit (http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2428344,00.html)!

WTF mate?

[humanhybrid]

Better to give them licence and to carry basic insurance. Its good to know who and where all illegals are. Let them pay taxes, its good for America! and healthcare should change. good day!

[mickydoolittle]

Faggot This (http://www.sungazette.com/wire/pawirestory.asp?articleID=2982&postdate=10/8/2004) & Faggot That (http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1097227258250840.xml).

No offense intended to you, DBA....

Also this (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pcpowder03oct03,0,405102.story?coll=sfla-news-palm) whackjob is alleging hatecrimes where none (http://www.nbc6.net/news/3779966/detail.html) exist.