Author Topic: So much for the first amendment (Read 1170 times)

lukster · « **Reply #60 on:** June 26, 2006, 01:57:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
Well... we know that the guy with control of the PA system thought she was preaching.

Can there be any doubt at all that the guy in control of the PA was scared ****less he would be slapped hard with yet another ACLU lawsuit for somehow not keeping the church and state separate? Much easier to pull the plug than fight for what's right.

It's traditional everywhere in America to let the Valedictorian speak. How can this possibly be construed as state sponsored religion? Anyone with any sense knows that this student is speaking of their own personal experience and values. Denying this person, especially one of such demonstrated excellence, the opportunity to speak their mind and heart is not only oppresive but just plain stupid.

Horn · « **Reply #61 on:** June 26, 2006, 02:05:17 AM »

Bible thumping at a tax funded public forum.

Crossed the line. She was given direction in advance and chose to ignore it.

Elfie · « **Reply #62 on:** June 26, 2006, 02:10:32 AM »

Quote

Anyone with any sense knows that this student is speaking of their own personal experience and values.

Although I dont know that (none of us do for sure) since we dont know exactly what her comments were. I do suspect that was her only intent.

Quote

Bible thumping at a tax funded public forum.

We dont know thats what she was doing, all we have is one newspaper article.

lukster · « **Reply #63 on:** June 26, 2006, 02:13:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Horn
Bible thumping at a tax funded public forum.

Crossed the line. She was given direction in advance and chose to ignore it.

I only hope more choose to cross that line of tyranny.

lukster · « **Reply #64 on:** June 26, 2006, 02:15:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
Although I dont know that (none of us do for sure) since we dont know exactly what her comments were. I do suspect that was her only intent.

We dont know thats what she was doing, all we have is one newspaper article.

I meant Valedictorians in the general sense but I still think it applies to this specific person.

Elfie · « **Reply #65 on:** June 26, 2006, 02:26:49 AM »

You are right about the Valedictorians speaking at the commencement ceremonies, that is tradition here in the US. I too, suspect she was just speaking about her own experiences. That is *just* my suspicion though since we dont have enough facts to say so one way or the other.

Thud · « **Reply #66 on:** June 26, 2006, 03:06:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
.....their efforts have been more destructive than all of the attacks by angry bombers combined in this country.

Lol, I'm sure that even the most avid opponent of the ACLU (you aside) will find that comment a bit too lopsided. But eh, nuance has never been a concept you've grasped as already evidenced by your comments in this thread.

Shuckins · « **Reply #67 on:** June 26, 2006, 06:38:46 AM »

The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights when it suits their purpose. The occasional lawsuit filed by them on behalf of a right-wing cause is merely a sop thrown to appease it's critics.

The ACLU must assume some of the blame for the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits filed by "victims" of "crimes" against civil liberties. As long as this organization, and the lawyers intrenched in Congress, remained opposed to tort reform, such lawsuits will remain a plague on society.

Having sat through numerous graduation speeches, I can state that many of the graduates speaking have made statements thanking their parents, friends, teachers, and God, for helping them achieve their goals. In the past, no one in the audience even raised an eyebrow.

Not so today. Even red states such as my own are beginning to witness recent immigrants from the left coast or the frozen north raising a ruckus about these statements. They don't get much support from the locals...but the ACLU is front and center lending a helping hand.

They defend our rights when it suits them.

lazs2 · « **Reply #68 on:** June 26, 2006, 08:16:10 AM »

""I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union."

That is all you need to know about the ACLU.

They are a commie organization that wants the government to control our every action and individualism to be crushed by an all powerful state... they are for the state owning all property and your lives.

In a revolution of any kind.... they would have to be hunted down and exterminated.

lazs

lukster · « **Reply #69 on:** June 26, 2006, 09:59:11 AM »

The ACLU will take a case to the Supreme Court to defend a person's right to distribute child pornography http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html as the self-proclaimed defenders of the First Amendment.

Yet they will also take to the Supreme Court just about anyone that wants to exercise their First Amendment rights if it involves their religion and the ACLU can somehow invoke this mysterious but all-poweful "separation fo church and state" litany.

Sandman · « **Reply #70 on:** June 26, 2006, 11:28:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
The ACLU will take a case to the Supreme Court to defend a person's right to distribute child pornography http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0458_0747_ZS.html as the self-proclaimed defenders of the First Amendment.

Yet they will also take to the Supreme Court just about anyone that wants to exercise their First Amendment rights if it involves their religion and the ACLU can somehow invoke this mysterious but all-poweful "separation fo church and state" litany.

LOL. Try reading the decision and the opinion of the court. Ferber was acquitted on two counts of violating New York 263.10. The two convictions for violation of 263.15 were overturned on appeal because it's a poorly written law.

Quote

Section 263.15 was underinclusive because it discriminated against visual portrayals of children engaged in sexual activity by not also prohibiting the distribution of films of other dangerous activity. It was also overbroad because it prohibited the distribution of materials produced outside the State, as well as materials, such as medical books and educational sources, which [p753] "deal with adolescent sex in a realistic but nonobscene manner."

Got anything more from the talking points playbook?

lukster · « **Reply #71 on:** June 26, 2006, 11:34:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
LOL. Try reading the decision and the opinion of the court. Ferber was acquitted on two counts of violating New York 263.10. The two convictions for violation of 263.15 were overturned on appeal because it's a poorly written law.

Got anything more from the talking points playbook?

I don't think you understood what happened there. The New York Court of Appeals overturned the convictions. However, this went to the US Supreme Court which upheld the lower courts convictions. Maybe you should try rereading it?

lukster · « **Reply #72 on:** June 26, 2006, 11:48:19 AM »

Let me make it easy for ya.

"Held: As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 753-774."

The ACLU was on the losing side here. Both legally and morally. It seems to me they want to defend causes like this which have little real connection to the First Amendment while at the same time opposing those who would truly exercise that right like the young woman about which this thread was started. It's obvious to me what their agenda is.

Forget about the ACLU for a minute. This isn't about the "church's" right to be heard. It also isn't a case whereby one person who speaks of their religion, in a very appropriate setting imo, is somehow representing the state because she does so at a school function. This is about one person exercising their right to freely speak about something important to them in a setting where they were invited to do just that.

If dissent is American then this young woman is truly American.

Sandman · « **Reply #73 on:** June 26, 2006, 12:05:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
I don't think you understood what happened there. The New York Court of Appeals overturned the convictions. However, this went to the US Supreme Court which upheld the lower courts convictions. Maybe you should try rereading it?

Oops... my apologies. IANAL.

lukster · « **Reply #74 on:** June 26, 2006, 12:10:29 PM »

Ya oughta be careful who ya side with. Just because the ACLU opposes religion does not mean that they share your goals. Unless your goal for this country is complete socialism maintained by "dictatorship" if necessary once established. Roger Baldwin may have renounced communism in 1940 when Stalin made a pact with Hitler but I don't think he, or those ACLU members who remianed loyal to the communist party, ever abandoned their goals for absolute socialism in this country.