On Freedom of Speech

[Raistlin]

What? That's just not right. If I told someone that they should descriminate against blacks, and they did it, it would be a crime?

You would be an accomplice. And how is that not right? If you told someone to kill someone else, and they did it, then THAT's a crime, so why not this?

What if I told someone to descriminate against skin heads? If they did that, would it be a crime? And would I also be considered an accomplice? Please... A double standard like that should NOT exist.

Yes, it is a crime. Or at least, should be based on the accomplice statute.

[Sasquatch]

What this all boils down to is the fact that too many people in America don't realize that they do NOT have the right to never be offended. This goes both ways. If somebody had held a public art showing of Christian work, most likely people would protest, and possibly include the ACLU, and the showing would be shut down. But if it was a public showing, and funded by tax dollars, then the only legit way to shut it down would be to look into the rules for such public, tax-funded demonstrations and see if they can find something that violates it. That's it. You're offended, oh too bad, that's not infringing on any of your civil rights. BUT...as I said, this goes both ways. Or, rather, it SHOULD, but it doesn't. You think the government would let a "straight pride" rally march through city streets?

The ACLU has long outlived its usefulness. It no longer protects civil rights, it infringes upon them.

And somebody mentioned freedom of speech in public schools. I agree with the next person, who points out that there is no freedom of speech in public schools anymore.

[Raistlin]

The ACLU has long outlived its usefulness. It no longer protects civil rights, it infringes upon them

Are you nuts? Please, post an example of the ACLU infringing on civil rights.

And somebody mentioned freedom of speech in public schools. I agree with the next person, who points out that there is no freedom of speech in public schools anymore.

There should be.

What this all boils down to is the fact that too many people in America don't realize that they do NOT have the right to never be offended.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

[Sasquatch]

Are you nuts? Please, post an example of the ACLU infringing on civil rights.

Well, for starters, there's their approval of the Japanese-American interment...their support of Micheal Newdow...their battle to secure Evolutionism as the only possible method of creation (and taught as fact) in public schools, which of course are funded by local tax dollars...their work in ensuring that parents don't know if their teenage daughters are getting abortions...their fight to have the government force us to recognize to homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage...and of course their constant efforts to ensure that our tax dollars are going towards extreme liberal causes and nowhere near anything resembling Christianity.

*Japanese-American interment... In World War II, the U.S. government rounded up about a million Japanese immigrants living on the California coast and put 'em into camps. "Just in case." Camps, not too much unlike Jewish camps in Nazi Germany (except the slaughters, of course). Not our finest hour. And the ACLU supported it.

Those good? Any more examples you need of the ACLU infringing on Americans' civil rights?

[Raistlin]

.their battle to secure Evolutionism as the only possible method of creation (and taught as fact) in public schools,

I don't know about the rest of 'em, but this one's wrong. One school in...Virginia, I think it was, had a disclaimer on their Biology text books that "evolution isn't the only idea out there, and that all should be equally considered and decided upon." Some of the parents in the district sued the school for violation of the Establishment Clause, and the ACLU sided with the school district.

[Sasquatch]

That's one school. There's a county in Georgia (Cobb) that I heard a lot about a while back, and that's certainly not the case. Plus, I just got out of high school a couple years ago, and in most cases the only thing teachers were allowed to teach was Evolutionism. Unless a class member asked them about any other theory, in which case they could explain in brief, but not express their beliefs. And, in many cases, Evolutionism is taught as fact--it's taught that there are some other beliefs, but that Evolutionism has been proven. Which, of course, is completely false, but that doesn't stop 'em.

Either way, they still fight to exclude the mere mention of Creationism in a public school, regardless of how many students in the school believe in it. It is one of the two most popular beliefs in the creation of the universe, and it's illegal for a teacher to mention it.

[Raistlin]

The ACLU may be one of the fighters, but the US Supreme Court made the rulings. Apparently they think it shouldn't be taught, either.

[The Redneck]

In Cobb County, Georgia, they sided against the parents and the school district. They won, and the stickers were removed, allowing the school district to teach a convoluted, self-contradictory, and eminently flawed theory which comes into direct opposition with every branch of science as if it were solid fact.

As for the topic-issue:

Yes, you have a right of free speech. You have a right to say whatever you want, no matter how stupid it is. However, you do not have the right to make someone else pay for your speech, and herein is the problem. By making some incredibly stupid statement and then forcing you to pay for it, these people infringe upon our right to free speech--if telling us we may not say things we believe is wrong, isn't it much, much more so to tell us that we must say things we do not believe?

The fellow with the bomber-statement has every right to say that, even if it's an amazingly stupid thing to say. However, I have the right not to pay for it--which means the government has no place at all taking my money and handing it to this guy for the sole purpose of being an idiot.

Likewise, Ward Churchill's First Amendment rights allow him to claim that the victims of 9-11 deserved what they got, to call them "little Eichmanns" (Eichmann was the guy under Hitler who supervised the "Final Solution"), and to claim that the fact the "combat teams" only murdered 3,000 people shows how "merciful" they are. But my right of free speech allows me to not have the government take money from me and use it to fund his flagrant idiocy.

[Sasquatch]

^ Man that guy's good.

[Raistlin]

In Cobb County, Georgia, they sided against the parents and the school district. They won, and the stickers were removed, allowing the school district to teach a convoluted, self-contradictory, and eminently flawed theory which comes into direct opposition with every branch of science as if it were solid fact.

Woah. So what exactly are they teaching there now?

[The Redneck]

That would be evolution, which flies in the face of every branch of science from microbiology to simple mathematics, and which Nobel Prize-winners in the study of the theory have admitted doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[DMKA]

Plus, I just got out of high school a couple years ago, and in most cases the only thing teachers were allowed to teach was Evolutionism.

Evolutionism? Are you talking about Darwinism?

You're forgetting something...it's science classes that teach Darwinism, because Darwinism has scientific evidence and support. If you want to learn creationism, you go to church. Even if they did teach creationism in school, who's version would they teach? What text would the follow? It wouldn't work, because it's all about believe: science is about evidence. What about Government classes that teach us that our form of government is the way and communism is wrong? What if I don't believe that? Because it's American Government class, and that's what it's there to teach: American Government. Science classes are there to teach science. I really don't see why so many people have a problem understanding this.

[Raistlin]

That would be evolution, which flies in the face of every branch of science from microbiology to simple mathematics, and which Nobel Prize-winners in the study of the theory have admitted doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Actually, ever branch of microbiology supports evolution. Hell, common sense supports evolution.

[The Redneck]

I suggest you read the works of Micheal Behe--being a microbiologist, he can naturally explain it far better than I can.

However, every "leap" of evolution, from proto-cells forming in a 'soup' that would be immediately poisonous to them, to each and every microorganizm from the mitochondria to the flagellum, is basically impossible.

Moreover, common sense does not support the concept that a series of billions of impossible coincidences made us appear from a bunch of rocks. Nor, for that matter, does physics, astronomy, mathematics, biology, geology, geography, anthropology. or any other field of science. As George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, puts it....

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion; that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible; that life arose spontaneously by chance."

[LH]

Well, for starters, there's their approval of the Japanese-American interment...their support of Micheal Newdow...their battle to secure Evolutionism as the only possible method of creation (and taught as fact) in public schools, which of course are funded by local tax dollars...their work in ensuring that parents don't know if their teenage daughters are getting abortions...their fight to have the government force us to recognize to homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage...and of course their constant efforts to ensure that our tax dollars are going towards extreme liberal causes and nowhere near anything resembling Christianity.

Almost all of those are just things the ACLU did that you don't agree with. Please, fighting for the right to same sex marriage is an infringement on civil liberties? The only example you cited that is not immediately inaccurate and has anything to do with civil liberties being infringed upon is supporting the inprisonment of the Japanese on American soil, and based off of your other examples I'm going to declare that one bull :rolleyes2 :rolleyes2 :rolleyes2 :rolleyes2 until you have a link.