STOP THE ACLU

Until then, our secular republic will do very nicely, thank you.

 

Actually, that's not what he said. This is something he was quoting from what a communist would view as being a "perfect" society. In fact, he went on to say that "So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy". This is a clear example of how esay it is to take words out of the intended contexts to twist them into an independent agenda.

I'm no fan of the ACLU, but as Christians, we should always strive to be accurate in ur facts. Poor facts make for poor Christian witness. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I left that out because we ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, WE ARE A REPUBLIC... so that comment in no way changes what Roger Baldwin wanted. He wanted to change America to be something that it is not. Communism was his goal. Telling the truth is a very good witness, thank you. </font>[/QUOTE]It does make a difference, attributing words in a quote to a person who is quoting another. This is the same fallacy as those who attribute to Jesus the statement of "Bring my enemies before me and slay them". Jesus said it in the context of a quote. Dishonesty weakens your argument. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not being dishonest. I'm shining the light of truth on a communist organization trying to bring down this country from within with (obviously) the help of the uninformed, or the blinded.

 

So how does putting words in someone's mouth equate to the "light of truth"?

 

I like: Athiests, Christophobes & Liberals United. </font>[/QUOTE]Playing silly little games like this, attaching new words to an acronym, adds nothing to the dialog. </font>[/QUOTE]Chill out MP.
Faithgirl

 

Same back to you FG. Debate should address talking points, not petty, childish games.

 

[. Also there is a father in Massachutes who is going to be tried because he spoke out against his kindergartener being taught about homosexuality. [/QB][/QUOTE]
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/9/62005a.asp

 

The criminal charges appear to be trespassing, as he refused to leave the campus; not because he spoke out. Who knows if he was making a scene or not, but he should have left and taken it up with the school board. His poor choice got him prosecuted. I also did not see the ACLU mentioned as you said "you would not be surprised". Looks like they are not involved in this despite your suppositions.

 

Does the aclu really support pedophilia? I didn't know about this one.

 

Please explain "putting words in someone's mouth"

 

You stated earlier that Roger Baldwin said "I am for socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the state itself... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."

In reality, that's not what he said. This is something he was quoting from what a communist would view as being a "perfect" society. In fact, he went on to say that "So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy".

This is a clear example of how esay it is to take words out of the intended contexts to fit them into an unrelated agenda. I don't believe you were attempting to mislead anyone in your post. I believe you truly thought that those were his original words. No harm, no foul, it was an innocent post.

As I said earlier, I'm no fan of the ACLU. My only contention has been that as Christians, we should always strive to be accurate in ur facts. Poor facts make for poor Christian witness.

Not exactly. They took cases on behalf of NAMBLA (the North American Man Boy Love Association) that involved Amendment I free speech issues. While the ACLU scores no point in my book for representing them, for me to claim that the ACLU "supports pedophilia" would damage my credibility of Christian witness. A greater concern is that some Christians will tell me I "must" claim that they support pedophilia in order to be considered truly faithful to Christ.

 

Agreed. That brings another question to mind.

I wonder what stand the aclu would take for a victim of a NAMBLA member who brought suit against NAMBLA for openly advocating pedophilia.

There may not be an easy answer, but it makes one stop and think about the possible consequences of some "free speech".

 

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it's a duck.

 

I like: Athiests, Christophobes & Liberals United. </font>[/QUOTE]Playing silly little games like this, attaching new words to an acronym, adds nothing to the dialog. </font>[/QUOTE]And yet each term is undeniably true.

 

They defended NAMBLA's "rights" to publish literature illustrated how men could coerce children (boys specifically) into sex. The claim is that they have a right to speak or publish these unspeakable horrors under the first ammenment. But I say that if a single Founding Father knew the Bill of Rights would be twisted into the perversions that the ACLU now defends daily, they'd have written off the whole thing and gone back to King George.

 

You cannot yell fire in a crowded building. You cannot joke about having a bomb on a plane. You cannot say that you want to murder the President.

But, according to the ACLU and by extension, it's defenders, NAMBLA's "speech" is apparently supposed to be okay. Good will be called evil. And evil will be called good.