Go back to majority rule?: Forget ACLU?

[Iamme]

I was listening to Mike Gallagher this morning..even though he so often gets under my skin. Today's topic is the ACLU and Christmas.

He says now, not only does the ACLU want to get rid of nativity scenes, but (get ready)...even what SECULAR Christmas has as it's symbol; Santa Claus!

It maybe sounds kind of nutty...like the ACLU can't make up it's mind WHAT it really wants. But Mike said the reason is...that they want to do away with ANYTHING that has to do with Christmas. That they would just as soon do away with Christmas.

He said that it would not be a stretch, if somewhere down the line, the ACLU will try to sue the government for having Christmas as a holiday. (Government workers off with pay, and all that).

All this got me thinking. *I* am not exactly a born again Christian, even though with my Gerrman/Scandanavian heritage I was a confirmed Lutheran. Today, I can't stand it when they pipe Chritmas carols through the speakers downtown. I can't stand it when songs (ANY religious song) is piped through the church belfries in my town, for me to hear. I am always mumbling to myself: "Where is the ACLU when you need them?!":con2:

But upon further reflection this morning, I got thinking...IS this really what I want. Would I like to see the ACLU win out and deprive the masses of what they want, because some in the minority are offended? Do I want Christmas to be taken away from my God-fearing mother, who so much enjoys this season? A guilt trip came over me, and I realized that perhaps it really IS best, to let the majority have their way.

If the majority does not have THEIR way...then this must mean that you are letting the minority have THEIR way. And THAT is sort of goofy, now isn't it?

Think about this carefully before you respond. Ask yourself like I did: "Am I being selfish?" Then consider all the ramifications.

[Mr Manifesto]

Is there an ACLU source for this? Besides what Mike Gallagher thinks? Just curious.

[Mr Manifesto]

The only one I can see is this (http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=14249&c=37) article on the removing of Christian religious imagery from a federal post office.

Not really the same as wanting to get rid of Santa Claus.

Maybe Gallagher was referring to something else- this is simply all I could find at a glance.

[Cleon]

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to defend the minority from the majority. State-promoted religion is case in point.

The ACLU isn't trying to "Get rid of Christmas." They're trying to get rid of state-sponsored Christmas, which is entirely correct IMO. (And "Santa Claus" is hardly secular--"heavily commercialized" is not synonymous with "secular.")

[Mr Manifesto]

Has Gallagher, perhaps, been duped by something like this (http://www.lafoutloud.com/christmas21.htm)?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Iamme
Today, I can't stand it when they pipe Chritmas carols through the speakers downtown. I can't stand it when songs (ANY religious song) is piped through the church belfries in my town, for me to hear. I am always mumbling to myself: "Where is the ACLU when you need them?!":con2:



Holy Humbug, Batman!!!

I think the ACLU's attempt to get rid of the Christ figure in CHRISTmas scenes is patently ridiculous. Maybe they will try to ban the word CHRISTmas from being allowed to be used in a sentence by an elected official next...

[Tony]

I wouldn’t put it past them, the ACLU isn’t interested in the bill of rights, it is interested in pushing an extreme leftist agenda under the guise of civil and constitutional rights.

I am completely against the majority oppressing the minority and vice-versa. Hence my positions on drug laws, gun laws, smoking laws, gay marriage, abortion ect... But being offended by the majority of people celebrated Christmas doesn’t constitute oppression.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony
I wouldn’t put it past them, the ACLU isn’t interested in the bill of rights, it is interested in pushing an extreme leftist agenda under the guise of civil and constitutional rights.

Man, what on earth do you smoke in the morning?

The ACLU isn't pushing anything beyond trying to get religion out of government. That's not an "extreme leftist agenda."

If they were waving rifles and wearing bandanas while shouting "ALL POWER TO THE PROLETARIAT! MAO MORE THAN EVER!" then that would be an "extreme leftist agenda."

[Iamme]

I can't help any of you any more than what I have stated. I believe he said that this Santa Claus issue was an actual case somewhere. I'll bet you could go to www.Mike.com.

I believe, from my memory, that that is his website. If not, just ask Google, Yahoo, ?..."Mike Gallagher" and you will get to his site, and topic(s) of the day, I'm sure.

As much as that guy bugs me...I still like listening to him. Of all the talkshow hosts I have heard, his voice, inflections...how his conversation flows...I find the most palatable. He is supposed to be the 6th most listened to talkshow host in America and is now featured on Fox, and I'm sure his popularity will build further.

[specious_reasons]

For the lazy:
http://www.mikeonline.com

Not surprising, he's got a campaign to send Xmas cards to the ACLU, but no links to source material.

Originally posted by Iamme
I can't help any of you any more than what I have stated. I believe he said that this Santa Claus issue was an actual case somewhere. I'll bet you could go to www.Mike.com.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Sounds like a "slow" news day .....

Charlie (now we don our gay apparel, fa la la la ...) Monoxide

[VicDaring]

ACLU doesn't seem to have any record of anything like this.

ACLU & Santa Claus? (http://search.aclu.org/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm)

[Tmy]

Bill Orielly was moaning about the same Xmas crap this morning.

he was saying that since its a federal holiday honoring christ, then we shoudl be able to have all these nativity scenes and so on.

Isnt the whole xmas federal holiday really just a practicle move. Even if they got rid of the day, who woudl show up for work???

In Boston St. Pattys day is a city holiday. WHy? cause of all the Irishman thats why.

I really dont care about nativity scenes, My worry would be the endless parade of kooks who would want THEIR symbols included. People already bitch n moan about Kwanzaa. Imagine the Satanist display in fron of City hall come Holloween. Who would be the fiorst to freak..........the Jesus people.

The citys are in a damn of you do/dont situation.

[UserGoogol]

^Not really. It's because of Evacuation day, which is a perfectly legitimate holiday; we have similar holidays on April 19 and June 17. (Patriots Day and Bunker Hill Day respectively.)

And since only City and State workers get the day off in Boston, it's barely worth mentioning.

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by Cleon


Man, what on earth do you smoke in the morning?

The ACLU isn't pushing anything beyond trying to get religion out of government. That's not an "extreme leftist agenda."

If they were waving rifles and wearing bandanas while shouting "ALL POWER TO THE PROLETARIAT! MAO MORE THAN EVER!" then that would be an "extreme leftist agenda."
LOL Cleon...that made me laugh!!

[Iamme]

Thank you specious_reasons for the correct site you listed in your post above. If any of you are bored; go there! Click into his site by putting your mouse pointer (hand) over his face and click into his website. Then click on: "topics/events" in the left hand column. Aw...MAN! Jack pot! Every topic discussed today that you can imagine. But I can't find the Santa issue. Maybe it will crop up on his site in a day or two.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Iamme
Thank you specious_reasons for the correct site you listed in your post above. If any of you are bored; go there! Click into his site by putting your mouse pointer (hand) over his face and click into his website. Then click on: "topics/events" in the left hand column. Aw...MAN! Jack pot! Every topic discussed today that you can imagine. But I can't find the Santa issue. Maybe it will crop up on his site in a day or two.

If you're presenting the argument, it's you who has to present the evidence, not anyone else. Otherwise, I could waste everyone's time in the forum all day by things like, "the government invented AIDS," "big business make huge profits out of child prostitution," "Dan Rather is leader of a Satanic cult," or whatever.

First you said you heard MG say something. Fair enough. It's difficult to prove what you heard on a radio show, and it would stall debate in this case to be nit-picky and insist on further evidence on this stage. Then it was suggested that the ACLU didn't say any such thing at all.

And now you want us to go to MG's crappy site to look for the evidence? Nope. You can do that. Post a link here when you find it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Contrary to popular belief, the ACLU doesn't initiate lawsuits. They take the cases of average cititzens. If there's any agenda, it's on the part of the citizen.

Don't use Talk Radio as your basis for reality Tony.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Iamme
I was listening to Mike Gallagher this morning..even though he so often gets under my skin. Today's topic is the ACLU and Christmas.

He says now, not only does the ACLU want to get rid of nativity scenes, but (get ready)...even what SECULAR Christmas has as it's symbol; Santa Claus!

It maybe sounds kind of nutty...like the ACLU can't make up it's mind WHAT it really wants. But Mike said the reason is...that they want to do away with ANYTHING that has to do with Christmas. That they would just as soon do away with Christmas.

He said that it would not be a stretch, if somewhere down the line, the ACLU will try to sue the government for having Christmas as a holiday. (Government workers off with pay, and all that).

All this got me thinking. *I* am not exactly a born again Christian, even though with my Gerrman/Scandanavian heritage I was a confirmed Lutheran. Today, I can't stand it when they pipe Chritmas carols through the speakers downtown. I can't stand it when songs (ANY religious song) is piped through the church belfries in my town, for me to hear. I am always mumbling to myself: "Where is the ACLU when you need them?!":con2:

But upon further reflection this morning, I got thinking...IS this really what I want. Would I like to see the ACLU win out and deprive the masses of what they want, because some in the minority are offended? Do I want Christmas to be taken away from my God-fearing mother, who so much enjoys this season? A guilt trip came over me, and I realized that perhaps it really IS best, to let the majority have their way.

If the majority does not have THEIR way...then this must mean that you are letting the minority have THEIR way. And THAT is sort of goofy, now isn't it?

Think about this carefully before you respond. Ask yourself like I did: "Am I being selfish?" Then consider all the ramifications.

A couple things to keep in mind in order to better understand this issue:

1) Mike Gallagher is an idiot
2) See rule #1

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tony
I wouldn’t put it past them, the ACLU isn’t interested in the bill of rights,


False. The ACLU does nothing but defend the Bill Of Rights. So I'm guessing you are actually opposed to these rights.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Contrary to popular belief, the ACLU doesn't initiate lawsuits. They take the cases of average cititzens. If there's any agenda, it's on the part of the citizen.



I can vouch for this. When I considered taking a position with my state ACLU, most of my day to day activity would have been sifting through the complaints and such of regular private citizens and determine which were valid cases worth pursuing given available resources. The ACLU it seems has enough on its hands responding to the people to actually go out and look for trouble.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


False. The ACLU does nothing but defend the Bill Of Rights. So I'm guessing you are actually opposed to these rights.

Sometimes the ACLU goes further than the Bill of Rights in defending civil liberties and rights.

Unfortunately some people come to the conclusion that they are somehow endowed with the knowledge that what is or isn't covered by the Bill of Rights, and that their personal interpretation is somehow "correct," and those who may have a different take on things are pushing some nefarious agenda. The ACLU largely takes the most pro-liberty / civil rights stance reasonable given the case law.

[Zero]

Isn't the majority of American geography in private hands? The vast minority of out lives is spend in government buildings, and these are the only places where the ACLU is making a stand against religious symbols. Are Christians so insecure in their faith that they can't feel comfortable without explicit government endorcement?

Also, I love the way the Religious Wrong ignores all the times where the ACLU steps in to defend religious liberty for individuals. Since it doesn't fit their anti-'liberal' mythology, they pretend those cases don't exist.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Zero
Isn't the majority of American geography in private hands? The vast minority of out lives is spend in government buildings, and these are the only places where the ACLU is making a stand against religious symbols. Are Christians so insecure in their faith that they can't feel comfortable without explicit government endorcement?

Also, I love the way the Religious Wrong ignores all the times where the ACLU steps in to defend religious liberty for individuals. Since it doesn't fit their anti-'liberal' mythology, they pretend those cases don't exist.

Reminds me of the time that concerned X-ians defiantly put crosses, or the ten commandments or whatever (maybe life-sized statues of 'Buddy Jesus') in their yards to fly in the face of the ACLU. To which an ACLU spokesperson said something along the lines of, we're quite happy for you to do that, in fact if anyone tries to stop you doing that give us a call.

D'oh!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Sometimes the ACLU goes further than the Bill of Rights in defending civil liberties and rights.

Unfortunately some people come to the conclusion that they are somehow endowed with the knowledge that what is or isn't covered by the Bill of Rights, and that their personal interpretation is somehow "correct," and those who may have a different take on things are pushing some nefarious agenda. The ACLU largely takes the most pro-liberty / civil rights stance reasonable given the case law.

By being selective of what cases they take, that is an agenda.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


By being selective of what cases they take, that is an agenda.

But is it a nefarious one? :D

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


But is it a nefarious one? :D

I really don't know. Sometimes I wonder about them, though. Like making a big fuss over a plastic Jesus in a manger at Christmas when there must be bigger problems that need solving.

Why don't they devote more energy toward getting rid of the Patriot Act?

This is a right-wing conservative saying this.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I really don't know. Sometimes I wonder about them, though. Like making a big fuss over a plastic Jesus in a manger at Christmas when there must be bigger problems that need solving.

Why don't they devote more energy toward getting rid of the Patriot Act?

This is a right-wing conservative saying this.

You can't be that right-wing- you don't want guns on planes. :D

Edit: But to actually answer your question, it looks as though they are doing something (http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,55838,00.html). Maybe there's only so much they can do.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


False. The ACLU does nothing but defend the Bill Of Rights.


No evidence? That's what I thought. Contrary to you, I do have evidence that the ACLU isn’t interesting in the Bill of Rights as much as they are interested in pushing an agenda. Look at their stances on affirmative action and gun control.

[Tmy]

Its kinda funny that the whole injunction to remove manger scene from Town Halll lawn has in itself become an Xmas tradition. There should be a Norman Rockwell painting of the court hearing. Or an "You're in the ACLU Charlie Brown" Xmas special.

Its been done to death. The ACLU doesnt even have to show up cause theres so much clear case law that any local attorney can easily bring the action.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Its kinda funny that the whole injunction to remove manger scene from Town Halll lawn has in itself become an Xmas tradition.

ROTFLMAO!

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


By being selective of what cases they take, that is an agenda.

Umm. Yeah. They kinda do have an agenda. That whole "Civil Rights and Liberties" thing. They aren't going to be taking any simple car-crash cases soon. Then there is a question of resources. They can't take every case, so they have to limit themselves in some way. The main criteria they use is that they try to avoid cases where facts are in dispute. These cost a lot more than cases where there is only a question of law. Then, there is a question of what cases forward their mission in the best way.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Umm. Yeah. They kinda do have an agenda. That whole "Civil Rights and Liberties" thing. They aren't going to be taking any simple car-crash cases soon. Then there is a question of resources. They can't take every case, so they have to limit themselves in some way. The main criteria they use is that they try to avoid cases where facts are in dispute. These cost a lot more than cases where there is only a question of law. Then, there is a question of what cases forward their mission in the best way.

I am going to be very careful in what I say next, and I don't want to be misunderstood. So bear with me, okay?

When you say the ACLU's only agenda is "that whole Civil Rights and Liberties thing," I kinda cringe. This is because it reminds me of another organizaton I was just debating about a few days ago. International A.N.S.W.E.R. which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. With a name like that, if you say anything against them for their extreme leftist "agenda", it sounds like you are for war and racism. You see what I'm saying?

So if the ACLU says they are all about civil rights and liberties, and anyone is critical of them, I sure hope it isn't taken to mean their critics are against civil rights and liberties. They aren't. They are against their agenda.

[gnome]

I think it's possible to make a case that the ACLU has biased priorities. But I think it's much harder to convince that their civil rights thrust is a front for their political agenda.

But I would argue even against the former... it seems their highest priority currently is the Patriot Act, which IMHO is exactly what it should be.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I am going to be very careful in what I say next, and I don't want to be misunderstood. So bear with me, okay?

When you say the ACLU's only agenda is "that whole Civil Rights and Liberties thing," I kinda cringe. This is because it reminds me of another organizaton I was just debating about a few days ago. International A.N.S.W.E.R. which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. With a name like that, if you say anything against them for their extreme leftist "agenda", it sounds like you are for war and racism. You see what I'm saying?

So if the ACLU says they are all about civil rights and liberties, and anyone is critical of them, I sure hope it isn't taken to mean their critics are against civil rights and liberties. They aren't. They are against their agenda.

Thanks for typing that slowly. I agree with what you are saying 100%.

My point was that their selectiveness comes from limited resources, and their opinion as to civil rights, and not from any nefarious plan beyond that. There can be honest differences of opinion.

I don't think "Those that disagree with the ACLU must be against civil rights and liberties." All such disagreement shows is that they disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of what those rights are. This is kind of what I was saying in one of the other posts, where Tony seems to make the sort of argument you decry, only in reverse, that the ACLU must not be for civil liberties/rights as it does not agree with his interpretation of those liberties/rights.

I think the sort of labeling problem you identified above is a HUGE problem in politics today. I'd be against anyone that claimed that opposition to the ACLU is opposition to civil liberties, or that opposition to PETA means you want to kill puppies for fun, or that disagreement with Libertarian policy means you hate freedom.

So I agree as far as that goes.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Thanks for typing that slowly. I agree with what you are saying 100%.

My point was that their selectiveness comes from limited resources, and their opinion as to civil rights, and not from any nefarious plan beyond that. There can be honest differences of opinion.

I don't think "Those that disagree with the ACLU must be against civil rights and liberties." All such disagreement shows is that they disagree with the ACLU's interpretation of what those rights are. This is kind of what I was saying in one of the other posts, where Tony seems to make the sort of argument you decry, only in reverse, that the ACLU must not be for civil liberties/rights as it does not agree with his interpretation of those liberties/rights.

I think the sort of labeling problem you identified above is a HUGE problem in politics today. I'd be against anyone that claimed that opposition to the ACLU is opposition to civil liberties, or that opposition to PETA means you want to kill puppies for fun, or that disagreement with Libertarian policy means you hate freedom.

So I agree as far as that goes.

Outstanding!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


This is kind of what I was saying in one of the other posts, where Tony seems to make the sort of argument you decry, only in reverse, that the ACLU must not be for civil liberties/rights as it does not agree with his interpretation of those liberties/rights.



I’m not so arrogant as to think that my interpretation should prevail. But the ACLU's "interpretation" of the second amendment is a flagrant perversion of what the 2nd amendment really is. They have no evidence to justify their "interpretation" of it.

[Luke T.]

I am having a hard time getting my thoughts to gel in a coherent manner as to the problem I have over the "separation of church and state" issue, but I'll give it a shot.

I am not sure that the real issue is about church and state more than it is about offensiveness. The counter-argument about putting Satan on the Town Hall front lawn seems to indicate that.

I think the ACLU demonstrated their lack of understanding of this when they defended the Nazis' right to march through the Jewish community of Skokie, IL way back in the 80s.

They seem to have tunnel vision. An obsession with one form of "rights" at the expense of other rights. Perhaps that is what Tony means, but I don't know.

[Tmy]

What is there interpretation of the 2nd?


The ACLU is not some computer. I imagine its lead by a diveres board. So of course they are going develope priorities and opinions on a # of civil rights issues. Man Id love to see these meetings. A bunch of strong willed people trying to hammer out a sole opinion on highly debated matters. What a show that must be.


Ya know, the NRA is just like the ACLU only with a more defined focus.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
What is there interpretation of the 2nd?


Its on their website.


Ya know, the NRA is just like the ACLU only with a more defined focus.


Except the NRA is more consistent. Ultimately, I support both groups; I just have some beef with the ACLU.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony



I’m not so arrogant as to think that my interpretation should prevail. But the ACLU's "interpretation" of the second amendment is a flagrant perversion of what the 2nd amendment really is. They have no evidence to justify their "interpretation" of it.

Their interpretation is a resonable one considering case law. It's that darned first clause, you know, the one about the militia? Roughly 100% of the case law, starting with the Miller case agrees that this is a restriction. Most make it a substantial restriction.

There are some people that argue a false contrapositive of Miller's holding, and there has been one Federal Circuit Court that has also followed this path. I'm usually diplomatic and call it a "Circuit Split" but it is likely better described as a renegade opinion.

If you want to get into substance, fine, but the vast majority of caselaw favors a very weak interpretation of the second amendment. Most examples of attempts to show otherwise rely on that one case I describe above along with out of context snippets from non-gun cases.

If you want to dispute the above, bring some cites and make an argument about the caselaw. You may want to do a search for my screen name and the words "Individual" and "Collective" if you want a more detailed explanation of the above. Then start a new thread or bump one of those to avoid hijacking this one. I'll be out of town starting tommorrow morning through the weekend, so you have time to collect your sources as to this point.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
Ultimately, I support both groups; I just have some beef with the ACLU.

An unexpected and productive statement. That's more reasonable than what I thought you were arguing.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I am having a hard time getting my thoughts to gel in a coherent manner as to the problem I have over the "separation of church and state" issue, but I'll give it a shot.

I am not sure that the real issue is about church and state more than it is about offensiveness. The counter-argument about putting Satan on the Town Hall front lawn seems to indicate that.

I've always seen it as a creeping problem. A cross on the courthouse lawn isn't a big deal, it's when later someone claims that we are a Christian Nation because we have crosses on the courthouse lawn. Like with the money, "in God we trust" is on there mainly as it was argued that it was "harmless tradition" or some such. But then we get people saying "of course this nation is based on God. Just look at the money!"


I think the ACLU demonstrated their lack of understanding of this when they defended the Nazis' right to march through the Jewish community of Skokie, IL way back in the 80s.

They seem to have tunnel vision. An obsession with one form of "rights" at the expense of other rights. Perhaps that is what Tony means, but I don't know.

I don't know about the Nazis. It is pretty clear that the only restrictions on speech that are legitimate are "time, place, and manner" speech, so it is a tough call for me to advocate disallowing a right based on the content of ideas. Sometimes principle causes unsavory results, and this seems to be one of those times for me.

On the other hand, if nothing else, allowing the Nazis to march is a nice reminder that there are still people like that out there. I doubt it raised their profile with any reasonable person, and prevented them from claiming that they are treated unfairly as the government is afraid of them or some such.

[Tmy]

Does anyone live near an ACLU office. I wonder if/what kind of Xmas decorations they have in the office.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Iamme
I was listening to Mike Gallagher this morning..even though he so often gets under my skin. Today's topic is the ACLU and Christmas.

He says now, not only does the ACLU want to get rid of nativity scenes, but (get ready)...even what SECULAR Christmas has as it's symbol; Santa Claus!

It maybe sounds kind of nutty...like the ACLU can't make up it's mind WHAT it really wants. But Mike said the reason is...that they want to do away with ANYTHING that has to do with Christmas. That they would just as soon do away with Christmas.


I found this:

And in Kansas, a school district buckled under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union and did away with its yearly visit from Santa. All this despite a Fox News poll recently released that showed 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas, which could mean all Grinches, beware.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105451,00.html

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tony


I found this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in Kansas, a school district buckled under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union and did away with its yearly visit from Santa. All this despite a Fox News poll recently released that showed 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas, which could mean all Grinches, beware.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105451,00.html

Personally, I would wait to hear the real story instead of this brief snippet. Moreover, you also fail to mention the following:

In New York City, there's a lawsuit challenging the district's policy of encouraging schools to display menorahs and the Islamic crescent and star, while prohibiting Nativity scenes

What are the chances this is an ACLU backed measure? Care to guess which side the ACLU is going to sit on?

[Tony]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Moreover, you also fail to mention the following:


Yeah, because I was addressing the issue of the ACLU removing Santa Claus. That other stuff is irrelevant to what I was addressing.

[Tmy]

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/education/2679284/detail.html

My bullshiznit sense was tingling so I checked on the story.

Turns out the "fair and balanced" Fox news forgot to mention that the Kansas SANTA was really a minister who "reportedly referred students who were judged in need of guidance to Christian resources. " Kinda changes the story huh.

Once agian Foxnews is misleading us.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/education/2679284/detail.html

Turns out the "fair and balanced" Fox news forgot to mention that the Kansas SANTA was really a minister who "reportedly referred students who were judged in need of guidance to Christian resources. " Kinda changes the story huh.




Yeah, it does change the story. I only posted it because I stumbed across it and saw that it might be relevant to the discussion here. I didnt research the matter any further than that.

[Tmy]

Your not expevted to know the details Tony, you were mislead by the news article. The truth is that the ACLU wanted THIS PARTICULAR Santa out ofthe school.

Bill Oreilly always bitches about The New York Times being bias in their reporting, yet he doesnt talk about FoxNews doingthe same.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Does anyone live near an ACLU office. I wonder if/what kind of Xmas decorations they have in the office.

I would be there are more Hannukah decorations than Christmas ones. ;)

Doesn't matter. It is not public property.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tony


Yeah, because I was addressing the issue of the ACLU removing Santa Claus. That other stuff is irrelevant to what I was addressing.

I disagree. If the ACLU were supporting a lawsuit against the banning of christian themed holiday stuff, it would completely contradict your attempted point.

Moreover, now given TMY's insight, it is more relevent than ever.

But you gotta say, the old "Fair and balanced" FOX News has exposed itself as completely incompetent once again.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I've always seen it as a creeping problem. A cross on the courthouse lawn isn't a big deal, it's when later someone claims that we are a Christian Nation because we have crosses on the courthouse lawn. Like with the money, "in God we trust" is on there mainly as it was argued that it was "harmless tradition" or some such. But then we get people saying "of course this nation is based on God. Just look at the money!"

I do believe this land was built by God-fearing people. There were your ruffians and profiteers, but I don't think they had much to say about the establishment of a democracy.

I don't know about the Nazis. It is pretty clear that the only restrictions on speech that are legitimate are "time, place, and manner" speech, so it is a tough call for me to advocate disallowing a right based on the content of ideas. Sometimes principle causes unsavory results, and this seems to be one of those times for me.

On the other hand, if nothing else, allowing the Nazis to march is a nice reminder that there are still people like that out there. I doubt it raised their profile with any reasonable person, and prevented them from claiming that they are treated unfairly as the government is afraid of them or some such.

The Nazis had been allowed to have public rallies in Chicago. Then Chicago banned them from having rallies. So the Nazis retaliated by saying they would march through Skokie. Skokie had holocaust survivors living there who didn't need any reminders. The issue was going before the Supreme Court when Chicago backed down and allowed the Nazis to have public rallies in the parks again as long as they agreed not to march through Skokie, which they did. It never did go all the way to the Supreme Court as a result, IIRC.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Luke T.

The Nazis had been allowed to have public rallies in Chicago. Then Chicago banned them from having rallies. So the Nazis retaliated by saying they would march through Skokie. Skokie had holocaust survivors living there who didn't need any reminders. The issue was going before the Supreme Court when Chicago backed down and allowed the Nazis to have public rallies in the parks again as long as they agreed not to march through Skokie, which they did. It never did go all the way to the Supreme Court as a result, IIRC. [/B]

I hate Illinois Nazis.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Luke T.


The Nazis had been allowed to have public rallies in Chicago. Then Chicago banned them from having rallies. So the Nazis retaliated by saying they would march through Skokie. Skokie had holocaust survivors living there who didn't need any reminders. The issue was going before the Supreme Court when Chicago backed down and allowed the Nazis to have public rallies in the parks again as long as they agreed not to march through Skokie, which they did. It never did go all the way to the Supreme Court as a result, IIRC. [/B]

I guess I don't understand your point. It is absolutely correct that the city of Chicago (or Skokie) had no grounds for preventing the Illinois Nazis from having a rally.

This is the entire essence of free speech: the government cannot prevent someone from speaking just because it doesn't like the message.

The ACLU is 100% correct on this issue.

As much as I hate Illinois Nazis, I support the constitution. Even slimeballs have protected rights in the US.

[Tmy]

You hate "Illinois Nazis"?? ARe you implying that you like Nazis from other states? Are New Mexico Nazis kinda likeable? :p

[gnome]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
What are the chances this is an ACLU backed measure? Care to guess which side the ACLU is going to sit on?

My guess is two-way:

Either: There are critical details missing from this description
Or: The ACLU's sides with the plaintiffs on the grounds of unequal treatment.

Note: 90% of all anecdotes I have heard against the ACLU are missing details that change the whole context.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Tmy
You hate "Illinois Nazis"?? ARe you implying that you like Nazis from other states? Are New Mexico Nazis kinda likeable? :p

I hope I was quoting from "The Blues Brothers", that's what I remember Jake saying before trying to run some down.

Of course, I may have just remembered the "editied for TV" version, where "Illinois" is replaced by stronger language.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I hope I was quoting from "The Blues Brothers", that's what I remember Jake saying before trying to run some down.

Of course, I may have just remembered the "editied for TV" version, where "Illinois" is replaced by stronger language.

No. You have it right. Blues Brothers is one of my top ten favorites.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I guess I don't understand your point. It is absolutely correct that the city of Chicago (or Skokie) had no grounds for preventing the Illinois Nazis from having a rally.

This is the entire essence of free speech: the government cannot prevent someone from speaking just because it doesn't like the message.

The ACLU is 100% correct on this issue.

As much as I hate Illinois Nazis, I support the constitution. Even slimeballs have protected rights in the US.

There is an expression about this that I can't accurately recall. But the basic idea is that you don't have the right to impinge on my rights. There is a limit to free speech.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


There is an expression about this that I can't accurately recall. But the basic idea is that you don't have the right to impinge on my rights. There is a limit to free speech.

The "fire in a crowded theatre" deal perhaps? That usually gets limited to statements intended solely to cause trouble, not expression of political beliefs. The Nazis seem to be pretty close to the line on that one. Perhaps beyond it in your estimation.

It really breaks down to a fascinating problem. We assume that political speech does no harm, but that is a bunch of crap in extreme cases. I wouldn't be suprised if it could be proven to some degree of medical certainty that the Nazi's marching in Skokie had a material negative effect on the health of the residents, especially the older holocost survivors.

The problem is where you draw the line as to what beliefs are too offensive. This is just to dangerous to me to mess with.

[Tony]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I disagree. If the ACLU were supporting a lawsuit against the banning of christian themed holiday stuff, it would completely contradict your attempted point.

I didnt have a point, I just posted it to spur discussion on the issue of the ACLU removing santa claus.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tony



No evidence? That's what I thought. Contrary to you, I do have evidence that the ACLU isn’t interesting in the Bill of Rights as much as they are interested in pushing an agenda. Look at their stances on affirmative action and gun control.

And their stances are.....???

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Suddenly


The "fire in a crowded theatre" deal perhaps? That usually gets limited to statements intended solely to cause trouble, not expression of political beliefs. The Nazis seem to be pretty close to the line on that one. Perhaps beyond it in your estimation.

It really breaks down to a fascinating problem. We assume that political speech does no harm, but that is a bunch of crap in extreme cases. I wouldn't be suprised if it could be proven to some degree of medical certainty that the Nazi's marching in Skokie had a material negative effect on the health of the residents, especially the older holocost survivors.

The problem is where you draw the line as to what beliefs are too offensive. This is just to dangerous to me to mess with.

There is no such thing as "too offensive" in terms of the government regulating speech. The "fire in a crowded theatre" is an issue of safety, as a fire would cause people to flee in an attempt to save their lives. It is not regulated because it is offensive speech. Moreover, it is only dangerous to the people that are in the theatre.

If the Nazis present a physical threat to anyone, then they are absolutely over the line. However, their right to peacefully assemble cannot be infringed by the government.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Suddenly


The "fire in a crowded theatre" deal perhaps? That usually gets limited to statements intended solely to cause trouble, not expression of political beliefs. The Nazis seem to be pretty close to the line on that one. Perhaps beyond it in your estimation.

It really breaks down to a fascinating problem. We assume that political speech does no harm, but that is a bunch of crap in extreme cases. I wouldn't be suprised if it could be proven to some degree of medical certainty that the Nazi's marching in Skokie had a material negative effect on the health of the residents, especially the older holocost survivors.

The problem is where you draw the line as to what beliefs are too offensive. This is just to dangerous to me to mess with.

The ACLU's line (and my line, as it happens) is that you don't get rid of 'dangerous' speech (aside from ones that cause safety concerns as pgwenthold pointed out), you'd be better off to combat dangerous free speech with more free speech.

I read an interesting book by Nadine Strossen called, "In Defense of Pornography". Post-Wolf (Naomi, that is) and Faludi feminism dictated that pornography was bad, mmmkay, because it depicted women in demeaning positions*. Erm... That didn't sound right. It made them subservient, is what I meant.

Strossen said that this was only a certain reading of pornography (for example, it's odd that a woman perfoming fellatio on a man is seen as subservient, considering what she is capable of doing if she were in a bad mood), and even gave an interesting argument for the positives of a 'money shot'.

Strossen acknowledged that some pornography was in fact demeaning to women, but believed that the answer to this was not to ban or marginalise pornography, but to get it out in the open and discussed. But because pornography is still a big taboo in Western society, the issues don't get discussed in the mainstream as much as it should. It wouldn't even surprise me if a moderator were to come along and delete 'money shot' in this post.

But the upshot of this ramble is that bad free speech should be fought with more free speech.









* I think it was Wolf and Faludi, anyway. I seem to remember Naomi Wolf crapping on an awful lot about the fact that Linda Lovelace was beaten and raped on the set of "Deep Throat", as though this was somehow the benchmark of all porno shoots.

[Iamme]

(Mr Manifesto)

If you're presenting the argument, it's you who has to present the evidence, not anyone else. Otherwise, I could waste everyone's time in the forum all day by things like, "the government invented AIDS," "big business make huge profits out of child prostitution," "Dan Rather is leader of a Satanic cult," or whatever.

First you said you heard MG say something. Fair enough. It's difficult to prove what you heard on a radio show, and it would stall debate in this case to be nit-picky and insist on further evidence on this stage. Then it was suggested that the ACLU didn't say any such thing at all.

And now you want us to go to MG's crappy site to look for the evidence? Nope. You can do that. Post a link here when you find it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

G Willigers Mr Manifesto. I can't help I can't find anything. I'm not spending hours on this thing just to try to verify what I know that I heard. I heard what I heard. If you don't believe it, or feel there is no sense in discussing it until the facts can be presented...then that is up to you I guess. I think everyone else is having a good time with it. (My response was to your second post on page one. Sorry it took me so long to get back.)

[Iamme]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tony


I found this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in Kansas, a school district buckled under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union and did away with its yearly visit from Santa. All this despite a Fox News poll recently released that showed 96 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas, which could mean all Grinches, beware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you very much, Tony! That's it. Fox News. That explains it. Mike is a featured guest on Fox now. Stands to reason that is where he got it from.

There you have it, Mr Manifesto. Sorry *I* couldn't find it earlier, to back up my claim.

[Iamme]

(TMY)

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com...284/detail.html

My bullshiznit sense was tingling so I checked on the story.

Turns out the "fair and balanced" Fox news forgot to mention that the Kansas SANTA was really a minister who "reportedly referred students who were judged in need of guidance to Christian resources. " Kinda changes the story huh.

Once agian Foxnews is misleading us.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting! That's why discussion boards are fun...right? We just wouldn't want people to report on stories, while all the readers/posters sit back in their puter chair going...(clap, clap, clap).

So, I guess Mike is a blathering bag o wind some (often?) times. He loves to stir up controversy. Telling half-truths aren't the way to get the job done, however.

[Zero]

I'm wondering, in the case with the Cresent and star, menorah, and Christmas tree being allowed, and a manger scene not being allowed...would the allow a simple cross, or a "Star of Bethlehem"? Seems to me that the manger scene is trying to depict an specific religious myth as being a historical occurance, which is different from displaying a symbol of a religion.