Think the ACLU Will Leap In?
This is an interesting piece. Close on the heels of defending a 9/11 Denier on its faculty, the good folks calling the shots at University of Wisconsin-Madison declined to recognize the Knights of Columbus as a valid student orgaization:
"A lack of recognition means a group cannot rent space on campus, recruit students at UW-sponsored events or use the school's name in its title. Such groups also cannot qualify for student fees, although the Knights of Columbus have never been funded.
The university's stance could signal that a legal battle looms between the school and religious groups.
Another group, the UW Roman Catholic Foundation, has been in a long-running dispute over whether it can be eligible for student fees.
The Alliance Defense Fund's Center for Academic Freedom, a Christian legal group, sent a letter this week demanding UW stop applying non-discrimination policies to Christian student groups. The letter cited the example of the Knights of Columbus as well as the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, which was not recognized last year by UW-Superior.
UW policies do not comply with a federal appeals court ruling last month forcing Southern Illinois University to reinstate the Christian Legal Society despite its requirement that members pledge to adhere to Christian beliefs, the center's director, David French, argued.
But Nagy said the UW System has reviewed that ruling and does not believe it has to change current policies to comply."
Here's the link to the Chicago Tribune feature - http://www.chicagotribune.com/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0608100209aug10,1,3428280.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I have set my stop watch to see how quickly the ACLU comes in to help out.
49 comments:
What an idiotic post.
Read some history.
The ACLU has consistently defended the rights of religious groups.
Well, which side are they on here Skeeter?
They didn't come rushing to the aid of Catholic Charities when they were forced out of the adoption business in Mass because they refused to cross Catholic doctrine on placing kids in same sex parent households.
Skeeter,
Your Dale Carnegie style continues to merit the responses you deserve.
Get a post and quit being such a snotty twerp.
The sad thing is that this blog could use an IGNORE feature.
This is anti-Catholicism pure and simple.
Congressman Jackson calls a political operator a scungili head qouting a fictional crack dealer and nobody says anything. Catholics can be attacked with impugnity. The Paddy wagon is actually named after calling Irish drunks "Paddy" but nobody has changed that. Imagine calling it the "shine" wagon or something worse.
Skeeter and others don't want to admit the anti-ethnic and anti-Catholic philosophy and actions out there, they are old and deep and still present.
Hickey, Congrats on bringing up something no one else would.
Bill,
as far as the ACLU 'defence' of religious rights - the deep thinkers point to a defence of the Catholic Workers Party which is a Leftist Catholic group. Other than that FUHGEDDABOUDIT!
This from a 2001 article by a Catholic magazine of some small note:
http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?textID=1189&articleTypeID=1&issueID=349
Bill,
Nobody challenges "Paddy Wagon"?
You need to walk into the Daley Center and see what judges think when you try and use that term.
Also, you may want to look into that term a bit more.
Originally, it may have been "hauling old Paddy away." However, over time it became "Paddy's driving the wagon."
Pat:
Attacking the ACLU. Very creative. Did you stop reading in 1988? Take a look at what the ACLU has done on religious liberties and then post. Your post was a cheap shot at an organization that has effectively created all of our basic civil liberties. Without the work of the ACLU, we would not have any effective freedom of speech. Seriously -- do some research.
The note about the Knights could have been interesting, until you tossed in the cheap smear on a great organization.
Bill,
Here's what ACLU Founder Roger Baldwin has to say on the matter:
Roger Baldwin: “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.”
I think that those sentiments might preclude an affection for orgainized - especially a supra-orgainized - religion.
The ACLU is an easy shot if they keep up stuff like this in Lousiana over a Cross for Katrina victims.
Bill, Baar that is,
That was a heart-warmer again by the 'betters' of our great Republic. I would love to by "Junior' Rodriguez a DIXIE the size of Guinn Big Boy Williams's head!
Over the years erosion has widened the outlet, so the bank on which the cross will be erected is on privately owned land, Rodriguez said.
You'll find crosses and stars of david in federal cemetaries by the way.
In Skeeter's defense, here is an instance where ACLU pulled a Voltaire "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16471
Bill,
Here is an interesting historical nugget:
The idea for a national cathedral is as old as Washington itself. In 1791, when Congress selected the site to be the capital of the United States, President George Washington commissioned Major Pierre l’Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of government.
Included in l’Enfant’s plan was a church, “intended for national purposes, such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned to the special use of no particular Sect or denomination, but equally open to all.”
Largely through the efforts of Washington community leaders such as Riggs Bank President Charles C. Glover, plans for building Washington National Cathedral gained momentum. On January 6, 1893, Congress granted a charter to the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation of the District of Columbia, allowing it to establish a cathedral and institutions of higher learning. Signed by President Benjamin Harrison, this charter was the birth certificate of Washington National Cathedral.
After his consecration in 1896, the Rev. Dr. Henry Yates Satterlee, the first bishop of Washington, managed to secure land on Mount Saint Alban — the most commanding spot in the entire Washington area.
On September 29, 1907, the foundation stone was laid. President Theodore Roosevelt and the Bishop of London spoke to the crowd of ten thousand. The stone itself came from a field near Bethlehem and was inset into a larger piece of American granite. On it was the inscription: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). With the laying of the cathedral foundation stone, the grassy, tree — shaded Close became home to the longest — running construction site in the nation’s capital.
In 1912, Bethlehem Chapel opened for services which have continued daily ever since. In October 1928, President Calvin Coolidge came to open the General Convention of the Episcopal Church at the Cathedral.
The Cathedral quickly became a place for services of national focus. When the United States entered World War II in 1941, monthly services “On behalf of a united people in a time of emergency” began. Holy Spirit Chapel served as a War Shrine and community memorial services were held.
As construction continued, Washington National Cathedral continued to take its place in history. President Woodrow Wilson’s tomb was dedicated in 1956 (Wilson is the only US president buried within the boundaries of the District of Columbia.) The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., preached his last Sunday sermon from the Canterbury Pulpit in 1968. Thousands gathered for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s funeral in 1969.
In 1976, the Cathedral’s nave and west rose window were completed and dedicated in the presence of Queen Elizabeth II and president Gerald Ford. It was also the place the nation gave thanks when the American hostages in Iran were freed.
The Pilgrim Observation Gallery was completed and opened to the public in 1982. In 1983 the final phase of construction began with the setting of the first stone for the west towers.
The completion of the west towers in September 1990 marked the end of eighty-three years of construction.
The Cathedral continues to be a place of national focus. It was the site of President George W. Bush’s Inaugural Prayer Service and later the National Prayer and Remembrance service on September 14, 2001. On December 25, 2002, the Cathedral broadcast its fiftieth national Christmas service.
Since the first services were held in Bethlehem Chapel, Washington National Cathedral has opened its doors to people of all faiths as they have gathered to worship and pray, to mourn the passing of world leaders, and to confront the pressing moral and social issues of the day. NATIONAL CATHEDRAL
Does not bother me that one church could make a claim as a NATIONAL Cathedral or that Public Acts by Public officials take place in such a place. Do you think that the Framers of the Constitution got their panties in a twist - you, now contemporary to such and audacious move?
Skeeter:
You can spend all day citing the hundreds of examples of the ACLU protecting the individual religious freedoms of countless people across the country, and it will have no impact on the terminally stupid who neither understand the Constitution nor the intention of the framers. Freedom as fine for them as long as it’s their limited definition of freedom, or in nut-job Hickey’s case, if it includes defending the enabling of serial child molesters in the Joliet Archdiocese.
Got a good memory gutless. I was standing with my friend Bishop Imesch - if that bothers your squishey innards do something about it.
That last Hickey post is pretty funny:
In a very Catholic way, he is threatening to beat the hell out of anyone who rips his friend, who tolerates child-abusing priests.
Well, what do you expect from reactionary freak who doesn't understand the Constitution, or it seems, the Bible.
About as I expected. Skeeter, you always live up to my expectations and are ignored.
Sometimes, as in Hickey's case, religion is the opiate of the stupid.
What does this subject have to do with Illinois? Seriously, keep this stuff off Illinoize, we don't care about National Cathedrals, the Catholic Church and the University of Cheese.
It's been said that blogs are the 21st century version of the old corner tavern, where everyone is free to spout opinions on all kinds of subjects, regardless of how drunk they are and how little knowledge they possess.
Check please.
Sound criticism at last - there's the door.
...blogs are the 21st century version of the old corner tavern, where everyone is free to spout opinions on all kinds of subjects...
Beer here, where?
For malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man!
LL,
You might want to do some real research as opposed to tossing out the same boring trip.
Your story is old news, and is told with a spin to show that either you or the writer did not understand the issues presented.
The ACLU says the government should not block communication.
They have taken that position since about 1917.
They think that even right wing dingbats like yourself should have the freedom to say what they want.
They represented Nazis, they represented those on the left, they represented people in between whether the speech had merit or not.
That is the interesting thing about freedom of speech. In America, we have the right to say even things that people do not want to hear.
You may want to look up this whole "freedom" thing, LL, since it is pretty clear that you don't have the slighest understanding of the concept.
You know, I stopped reading Jill Stanek's posts because she was too trigger happy with the delete key. I guess I'll get to skip all posts by Bill and Pat from now on, too.
They don't want their two-way conversation interrupted, anyway. We all win.
Sort of ironic, isn't it 1:53?
In the same thread that Hickey talks about freedom, he deletes posts that he doesn't like.
That shows you why he doesn't like the ACLU: They stand for freedom and he doesn't.
People like Hickey and Baar are all about free speech when it comes from their right-wing, theocratic talking points, but call them out for not addressing or defending their attacks and it's time to delete.
That's what happens when you champion the cause of child molesting clergy and corporate welfare recipients who refuse to provide decent wages and benefits. You just have to be able to block out every intelligent thought at some point just to get through the day.
Skeeter is dedicated to returning intellectual curiosity and intellectual honesty to the world of politics, and to improving German Shepherd Dog training and nutrition. "I resolve to mercilessly abuse my illusions and smack stupidity in the mouth. I resolve to never acquire a taste for the bitter lies that I am fed. I am making a resolution for revolution! This year, I resolve to change the world
Skeeter,
None of your comments have been deleted and only one that was a tad offensive was deleted by this administrator.
That you are an obnoxious twerp has no bearing on anything. You say very little at great length and tend to merely bait.
I ignore you. Comment up a storm.
Thanks, Anon.
The quote is from Boondocks. I should have given it attribution. If you know the strip, it is a sort of ironic quote because the next character resolves to learn the rerun dance.
Pat,
Actually, I deleted two of my own because I realized that they were argumentative and did nothing to advance the debate.
As I look at this thread, I see two "deleted by author" and one that you deleted.
You should feel free to delete away, including mine. If you do so though, just remember the context. I found the irony entertaining. For all your talk about freedom, it shows what you really think of it.
It is your forum though. Be ironic if you want.
There is a difference between threatening to kill an individual and conspiring to do so.
The ACLU stepped into that case because there were no threats directed at individuals and there was no harrassement of individuals. There was extremely offensive speech, but if that was the test, then we should also shut down the KKK and every Nazi organization.
The ACLU has taken the position that even the American Nazis have the right to free speech, no matter how offensive that speech may be. Part of being American is that we believe that good ideas win out over bad ideas and that the best attack on ideas is facts and logic and words and not government intervention to shut people up.
You and I differ on freedom. I believe that even people I find offensive should have freedom of speech.
You want the government to decide what people can say.
That's why you are a right wing extremist and I am not. We have a different approach to freedom.
Not that the truth will matter to anti-ACLU, tinfoil hat wearing whack jobs, but what the hell here goes. The Massachusetts lawsuit said the crime in question was the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle the ACLU defended in the case is as simple as it is central to the freedom the speech: those who actually commit the crime are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
Not quite the same as LL in his tinfoil hat following people around saying he'll rape and kill them, but exactly the same as him not being prosecuted (or sued) for saying it on a blog. That would be the difference (in this case) between harassment in protected speech, or in that case of Murder versus protected speech.
You still don't get it, the lawsuit was about speech, not the action. Do you understand the difference between speech and action? Should you be sued if someone tests your theory and "follow(s) you whenever you are in a public place and say I am gonna rape you and kill you?" You said it. If it causes someone to do it, we ought to string you up right?
If the case undermines any and all confidence in law or the enforcement of law, the ACLU will champion that cause.
From its inception ACLU has been and continues to be an elitist organization with the stated purpose of leveling all institutions in opposotion to its goals.
A wonderful source would be -The definitive biography, Roger Baldwin and the American Civil Liberties Union, published by the Columbia University Press in 2000, was written by Robert C. Cottrell: Believing that only the best sorts of people should be involved in an organization like the ACLU, Baldwin sought to limit the membership rolls. At the same time, theACLU became involved in a series of noteworthy cases, including those involving Sacco and Vanzetti, John T. Scopes, and the Scottsboro Boys. ACLU attorneys helped to reshape American constitutional law, with the idea of the First Amendment providing a shield for "preferred freedoms" beginning to take hold. All the while, Baldwin continued to back a number of left-wing endeavors, supporting various United Front and Popular Front enterprises, writing about and visiting Soviet Russia, and urging that radicals and liberals in the United States join together to fight fascism, racism, and poverty.
Today, it seems that Old Rog got his wish.
Then you ought to turn yourself in on the off chance someone is incited to violence by your speech. We can't be too careful.
LL,
I quite agree and so do most prosecutors, thanks be to God. An individual or a group is responsible for word and deed.
The scotists of the ACLU will split the hairs of a constitutional phrase until it becomes meaningless and politicians who go along with that hair-splitting are undermine the public trust as well.
You have no concept of the case being discussed. No threats were made against the child on the web site. The killer had some of their material with him, material that made no mention of killing a child. If the material he had included a threat to harm that child (only that would make it analogous to your question) then of course they would, and should be liable, but that wasn't what the case was about. And no matter how much you want that to be the issue, it wasn't the issue.
You're not too bright, are you? I did "Answer the freakin' question!!!" If someone is directly responsible for an action then they're responsible for it. If someone reads a book about a serial killer and then goes and out and commits similar crimes, the author is not responsible. If I had crayons I'd make the point simple enough for you to understand.
someone needs to frame the question correctly when you're too intellectually dishonest to do it yourself.
I have answered your question three times. If I were speaking I'd do so slower so you could understand (not an attack, an observation about the criminally stupid). Of course, if a person takes a direct action (again, slowly, that would be you threatening me directly...I know that was a difficult concept for you to grasp, so I'm making sure you get that) then yes, it would be a crime. Of course, that has nothing to do with your original point which was that people who spoke or wrote words that someone claimed caused someone to commit an act should be held responsible. So there, simple enough for you to wrap your head around, but again, that question has nothing to do with your original “got you” moment about how terrible the ACLU is to defend speech. But then changing the focus really is the last refuge of scoundrels.
Thank you for revealing your total lack of anything even resembling integrity. I agreed with your question that had nothing to do with your original premise.
And you have so few functioning brain cells (probably a result of parroting all of those right-wing talking points) that it took you an hour and three posts to figure out that I had long before agreed with your phony premise that had nothing to do with your original so-called point.
what about the beer?
In Illinois there is a law that was sponsored by Ed Petka which allows suits against authors of material which incites crimes.
I'm not a lawyer, so I may not have stated the law quite correctly, but I'm close.
I am not aware that it has evern been used.
Maybe when Ed gets to be a judge the first case will be tried in his court room.
Cal:
I remember he introduced that, but I don't recall it passing. do you by any chance have the citation?
Being anti-Catholic is considered cool and it is acceptable.
Especially in so called elite and academic circles.
There was not outcry against Ted Turner (actually talking about killing the Pope) like against Mel Gibson.
Post a Comment