The ACLU defends Baptist Protests

[Magnetic Poles]

Actually gekko, the problem with the Ten Commandments displays are not that they are displayed....but that they are displayed on government property. The Supreme Court of the United States has legal precedent that is mixed. Last year, they allowed a display to remain on the Texas State Capitol grounds, but ordered one down in the state of Kentucky. There is supposedly something called the "Lemon Test", where the intent of the display is taken into consideration...if it is for promoting religion, then it must go; if not, it can stay, usually on display with other historical documents.

As is typical in the U.S., most of these displays were capitalistic promotion. They were donated to local Eagles lodges and communities by the filmmaker of the Charleton Heston film, "The Ten Commandments" as a way to promote the film. This was, I seem to recall, in the 1950s. During that McCarthy era, breaches of the wall of separation were largely overlooked, as a belief in God supposedly made us superior to the godless Communists. It was also during that time that the national motto was changed from "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one), to "In God We Trust", the Congress required currency to carry the new motto, and the so-called "Pledge of Allegiance" was altered to insert the words "under God" in the phrase "one nation, indivisible". That last item was an odd placement, as it breaks up the thought of one country that cannot be divided. The drive to insert those words was sponsored and driven by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, and was passed by Congress, and signed by President Eisenhower.

So yeah, America has seen much discussion over the last 50 years about the role of religion in society. My view is that total neutrality toward religion is the correct position, both constitutionally and logically, with individual citizens holding the right to freely practice their religion. Nation's do not have religions, individuals do. God deals with the hearts of men on a one-by-one basis. Theocracy is, and has always been, an oppressing force that ends up persecuting those of minority religions or those who do not believe in religion at all. Their freedoms are just as important as mine and yours in a free society.

I am not familiar with the constitution of Oz, so I don't know if you have the same bifurcation of religion and government there or not.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Also, related to the opening post, the Colorado legislature, in the closing minutes of the current session, passed a bill aimed at Westboro, limiting funeral protests to a distance of 100 feet away, and 150 feet away if a bullhorn is used.
http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=1993188c-0abe-421a-01b2-24d7e7e984b8&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

The legislature also failed to pass a bill extending the statute of limitation on civil sex abuse suits, succumbing to pressure by the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_4684360,00.html

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Well, once again, I don't believe the ACLU is advocating NAMBLA's agenda at all. We will continue to disagree on that unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Try not to be blinded by your political ideology concerning the aclu activy on this issue.


You have all the evidence any Christian should ever need.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

After reading some of these posts I am so sick at heart I could cry...

That for a false premise people frequenting a Christian Board would so easily be decieved and compromise their values...

It is the easy popular thing to support purported "Freedoms" thinking that the World thinks of "Freedoms" the way 'True Christians' do.

But, they don't...

And, when you support the aclu you are supporting a devious and deceptive satanic assault on Morals and Ethics in America...

And, whether you like it or not a rather large number of Christian Leaders agree with me...

I have never been this heart sick before...

Even after having my room mate propose to the girl I thought was mine and she accepted...

SMM

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
This is the type of "free speech" the aclu believes is worth protecting.


http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp

That is a scare article, long on emotion and short on facts.

NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."

This is an inflammatory statement by the plaintiffs' attorney to influence public sentiment, pre-trial - apparently quite effectively. Should the Association be held responsible for what individual members do?

Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

Again, this is the attorney's spin. Note that "Rape and Escape" is the plaintiffs' attorney's name for the pamphlet. Many subsequent stories picked up on this colorful name and recite it as though it were an actual publication of NAMBLA.

According to Tim Painter, a NAMBLA expert and an inspector for the Alameda County District Attorney's office, officers found a copy of a pedophile safety manual when they raided Tampico's home. Painter headed up the investigation when he was a police officer.
Painter said that "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships," was written by NAMBLA member David Groat and was in the process of being edited by Tampico.

The book was not published by NAMBLA, and Painter said that it was never completed. [The long-time member being interviewed] Socrates said that he has never heard of the book.
Link to Source

Tampico, the editor of the manual, is now serving time on a pedophile offense. Groat was imprisoned in Thailand for running a pedophile sex-tourism operation. Part of the manual is about surving prisons in the US and abroad.

"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."

The suit actually alleges that Jaynes was heterosexual until he joined NAMBLA. Now do you really think that any non-homosexual, non-pedophile is actually going to join NAMBLA? This is what the plaintiffs' attorney would like the public, the judge and the jury to believe, but it seems extremely unlikely to me.

The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.

I could find very little concerning this particular piece of writing - whether it was actually in Jaynes' possession or whether it was presented at his criminal trial. But what I've been able to glean about it, it does not give directions for force or murder, but for seduction, escape and, if seduction suceeds and escape fails, surviving prison.

Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.

No references were given and I could find nothing on this.

Try not to be blinded by your political ideology concerning the aclu activy on this issue.

I did a lot of reading on this - most of it in off-hours as this isn't the sort of thing most employers smile on and, while we are allowed to use the internet during working hours, there are restrictions. It's hard to find very much of substance - I was also unable to find why Jaynes got a lesser sentence than Sicarri when it was Jaynes who actually killed the boy or the judgement in that trial.

But the more I read, the less convincing Frisoli's argument seems.

It's an interesting case, partly because the circumstances are so awful and the defendents so, um, distasteful that it is difficult to separate the actual issues from the emotional aspects of the case. I think carpro, among others, do not care to separate the issues from the emotions, which, while understandable, leads to inconsistencies in applying our laws and, as we are a republic, that is unacceptable. Laws and the principles of the laws must apply equally to all.

I think part of the problem is with the facts - if the allegation was that Jaynes used the NAMBLA material to seduce Jeffrey Curley, the case would be strong, but NAMBLA does not advocate force or murder, so I don't believe that the Steering Committee should be held personally and financially responsible for an associate's actions.

Here is an argument that someone else ('Mithras') made on First Amendment grounds:

Free speech is never popular. That's why we have a constitution to protect it - and even that doesn't always work.

Let's change the facts a little. What if, instead of a "rape and escape manual", someone simply writes a novel involving the rape and murder of a little boy, with lots of detail about how the killer gets away with it. Supposing two pedophiles read the novel and then use it as a roadmap to commit the same crime, except they get caught.

For those who want the suit against NAMBLA to go forward, do you want the author of the novel to be sued, too?

Or if the same information is published in a manual on how to avoid or catch pedophiles...

You have all the evidence any Christian should ever need.

The "evidence" you have presented is almost entirely the plaintiffs'. I believe Christians should have evidence from more than just one side, but I'm opposed to opinions based on ignorance.


Finally, from Wendy Kaminer (link):

NAMBLA has, however, found one unlikely defender--Jeffrey Curley's father, a primary plaintiff in the case. Robert Curley was previously represented by attorney Harvey Silverglate, a Massachusetts ACLU board member and First Amendment absolutist, in a dispute with the City of Cambridge over mandatory diversity training. He is surprisingly sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit: "I really do have a lot of respect for them," Curley told The Boston Globe. "They are very consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage."

It's too bad that courage is required to defend this case, when a simple appreciation of freedom of thought and expression should do. Unfortunately, the fundamental principle underlying the First Amendment--the protection of "offensive," unpopular speech--is not widely embraced.