Wooo.... in a few days I'll become a CARD CARRYING member of the ACLU!

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Yes that is embarrassing. . . . What can I say?? Everyone screws up from time to time.

Dino - Does this sound like I'm defending the ACLU on this point??

While I'm a great believer in Free Speech, that freedom does not extend to shouting "Fire" in a crowed theater, or publishing how-to-pick-up-underage-boys books for pedophiles.

[Sava]

congrats Imran.

[MrFun]

Should we also ban Ku Klux Klan rallies?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who are you refering to, MrFun?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Dino - Does this sound like I'm defending the ACLU on this point??

I'm sorry. Did it sound like I thought you were?

[Ben Kenobi]

The concept of the trinity has nothing to do with a Christian outlook.

Sure it does. The Christian understanding of God, is a central teaching of Christianity. Understanding the Trinity leads to many other insights into Christianity. To not teach the trinity is to reduce Christianity to a set of moral principles, which robs them of much of their power.

It may be a point of difference, but the specifics of it are irrelevent - the only importance is that there are points of difference.

I thought you went to a private university

I'd like to, and I may yet transfer to a private university to finish my degree, but that will have to come later, when I can afford to pay those bills.

Ah well, you still pay tuition, so it's not as bad. But no, public funds should not be used to support a political viewpoint.

Well, you pay teachers to teach, and if Communism is an important part of how he sees history, then I don't see any way around that dilemma. He has every right to teach History from a Communist perspective, just as much as another teacher would have the right to teach history from a christian perspective.

I.e. they wanted him to impart his knowledge to them.

In a philosophy course, the professor should teach about the different beliefs, not actually teach a specific belief.

That's a distinction that makes no sense. They seem the same to me.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Dino - Does this sound like I'm defending the ACLU on this point??

While I'm a great believer in Free Speech, that freedom does not extend to shouting "Fire" in a crowed theater, or publishing how-to-pick-up-underage-boys books for pedophiles.

Clearly, there are forms of speech that society has chosen to limit, for its own good. "Free" speech has never been absolute.

However, unless the limits are challenged stringently, there is a danger that society will go further than is healthy in limiting speech.

That is where the ACLU comes in, and why I have no problem with them bringing these kinds of cases before the courts.




Even as I mock them mercilessly for doing so.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm sorry. Did it sound like I thought you were?

It did sound that way to me. But I guess my ears were dirty. Sorry.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Clearly, there are forms of speech that society has chosen to limit, for its own good. "Free" speech has never been absolute.

However, unless the limits are challenged stringently, there is a danger that society will go further than is healthy in limiting speech.

"Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure it does. The Christian understanding of God, is a central teaching of Christianity. Understanding the Trinity leads to many other insights into Christianity. To not teach the trinity is to reduce Christianity to a set of moral principles, which robs them of much of their power.

Their "power" is irrelevent - knowing the trinity provides nothing towards understanding Christianities impact on the world. Hell, knowing their moral beliefs provides nothing, given that, by those standards, there really haven't been any Christians for 2000 years.

Well, you pay teachers to teach, and if Communism is an important part of how he sees history, then I don't see any way around that dilemma. He has every right to teach History from a Communist perspective, just as much as another teacher would have the right to teach history from a christian perspective.

You don't teach history from any biased perspective. You teach history as it was. The teacher is payed to teach what the State has agreed is the most unbiased account (in theory).

That's a distinction that makes no sense. They seem the same to me.

Teaching me that Plato presented certain arguments is different from actually making those arguments to me.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Clearly, there are forms of speech that society has chosen to limit, for its own good. "Free" speech has never been absolute.

However, unless the limits are challenged stringently, there is a danger that society will go further than is healthy in limiting speech.

"Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side."

Summary, please.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, this is for those who say the ACLU doesn't defend Christians (some food for thought in that tangent):

http://www.aclu-nj.org/pressroom/aclunjsueshousingcomplexfo.htm

ACLU-NJ Sues Housing Complex for Religious Discrimination

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 10, 1999

NEWARK, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it had filed suit against the owner and managing agent of the Roberto Clemente-Shalom Towers in Newark for religious discrimination.

The suit was brought on behalf of Pastor Delores Keels, a tenant in the Towers who has held religious services in the community room of the Towers for the past seven years. The community room is open for use by tenants on a first-come-first-served basis, so long as one month's advance notice is given. The room is used for many purposes including political rallies, birthday parties, and New Year's Eve parties. Recently, the managing agent of the Towers informed Pastor Keels that she could no longer use the community room for religious meetings.

“The denial of Pastor Keels' use of the community room is blatant discrimination on the basis of religion,” stated Lenora M. Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU-NJ. “New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination prohibits such discrimination.”

Although no other tenant has been denied use of the community room for any purpose, the managing agent discriminatorily restricted Pastor Keels' use of the room for religious meetings. Despite repeated requests made on behalf of Pastor Keels, neither the managing agent nor the owner has offered a satisfactory explanation for the denial.

“I am very troubled by the Towers' denial of my request to use the community room for religious meetings,” stated Pastor Keels. “I have been using the room for the past seven years without any problem. I believe I should be able to use the community room just as every other tenant in the building is able to use the community room. I hope the owner and agent will allow me to once again hold my religious meetings there.”

The case, Delores E. Keels v. Marzulli Realty and Roberto Clemente-Shalom Towers, Inc, was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Essex County. The law firm McCarter & English in Newark, New Jersey is counsel for the plaintiff on behalf of the ACLU of New Jersey.

[Ben Kenobi]

Their "power" is irrelevent

When the topic is the impact of Christianity upon the world, then the power is everything.

Hell, knowing their moral beliefs provides nothing, given that, by those standards, there really haven't been any Christians for 2000 years.

Well, what do you consider the standards for one to call himself a Christian?

And true, there has only been one who has been a proper Christian in 2000 years.

You don't teach history from any biased perspective.

All history has a bias. The question is not to teach without bias, but to discern bias in any source material.

You teach history as it was.

All historical sources have some bias, because they are written by different people for different purposes.

The teacher is payed to teach what the State has agreed is the most unbiased account (in theory).

No, the teacher is paid to teach the bias that the state prefers.

Teaching me that Plato presented certain arguments is different from actually making those arguments to me.

A better teacher will teach the arguments when they talk about what Plato taught.

[Ramo]

And the ACLU also supported the internment of Japanese-Americans during WW II.

False.

In 1942, a few months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the ACLU affiliates on the West Coast became some of the sharpest critics of the government's policy on enemy aliens and US citizens descended from enemy ancestry. This included the relocation of Japanese-American citizens, internment of aliens, prejudicial curfews (U.S. v. Hirabayashi, 1942), and the like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU

And Nambla should be able to publish those guides.