Terry_Herrington said:
!00% wrong on both counts. Pay attention to the thread, Terry. The ACLU's goal is removal of private property rights, and suppression of free speech. Ann Coulter doesn't really seem to care what ANYONE says.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The ACLU is not your friend!!!
- Thread starter DQuixote
- Start date
!00% wrong on both counts. Pay attention to the thread, Terry. The ACLU's goal is removal of private property rights, and suppression of free speech. Ann Coulter doesn't really seem to care what ANYONE says.
Petra-O IX
Active Member
Ahhhhh! enough of Ann Coulter.Bro. Curtis said:
My question is will it do any good to contact our representives in D.C. to do anything about restricting the ACLU from eroding our basic Christian principals.
I would be curious if anyone has gotten any feedback form their Congressman or Senator.
I would say not. Our leaders seem to give the ACLU a pretty wide berth.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Bro. Curtis said:
Sorry Bro. Curtis, please don't make me stand in the corner! :laugh:
I've written letters to the editor and to my representatives and state legislators for years. I write to presidential candidates. I've blasted Hillary twice so far this year. You'll be surprised how many will respond. If you don't like their response, hit 'em again, harder!
Government is of, by, and for the people. We don't have leaders, we have public servants. It is up to you to choose the best, then tell them how you want them to vote.
Having said that, those of you who don't care, who are pro-abortion, who are pro-homosexual unions or marriages, pro-homosexual adoptions, pro-ACLU, pro-politically correct speech, pro-tolerance, pro-any god will do, can remain silent. Thank you very much for doing so.
Government is of, by, and for the people. We don't have leaders, we have public servants. It is up to you to choose the best, then tell them how you want them to vote.
Having said that, those of you who don't care, who are pro-abortion, who are pro-homosexual unions or marriages, pro-homosexual adoptions, pro-ACLU, pro-politically correct speech, pro-tolerance, pro-any god will do, can remain silent. Thank you very much for doing so.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
DQuixote said:
Don't count on our silence!
Nope, I fully expect the left to embrace the socialist machine, while blaming America's problems on right-wing Christians.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Bro. Curtis said:
I don't believe I've ever blamed right-wing Christians for the ineptness of our government.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
DQuixote said:
Are you referring to the legal assistance they have provided these organizations, or can you show that they are actually supporting these groups (specifically, have they supported NAMBLA)?
I would be very interested in seeing actual support from the ACLU.
Regards,
BiR
The ACLU's own site says they have represented MANBLA several times.
Oh wait....Rush probably allready said that.
Oh wait....Rush probably allready said that.
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Bro. Curtis said:
Perhaps you missed my question:
BaptistinRichmond said:
In other words, are they actually supporting the group, or are they simply offering legal counsel?
Regards,
BiR (curious as to why you introduced Rush into the conversation - I never did)
Thought this was interesting!
http://www.abpnews.com/1882.article
Guess the darkness has overpowered the light?!?!
http://www.abpnews.com/1882.article
Guess the darkness has overpowered the light?!?!
Baptist in Richmond said:
What would you prefer ? Do you think groups like MANBLA are constitutionally protected ? I didn't think advocating statutory rape were covered under free speech.
Certianly there is speech that is not protected, yelling fire in a public building, making threats against the life of another person as examples.
But the word "advocating" creates an interesting dilema in the free speech discussion. It is possible to advocate for something without doing it. So think I would in general side with freer free speech rather then restricting free speech. That does put one in company with some less the desireable folks that is for sure and I am not sure how comfortable I am with that, but not being able to say what one feels, even if it is offensive, runs across every grain in my body.
But the word "advocating" creates an interesting dilema in the free speech discussion. It is possible to advocate for something without doing it. So think I would in general side with freer free speech rather then restricting free speech. That does put one in company with some less the desireable folks that is for sure and I am not sure how comfortable I am with that, but not being able to say what one feels, even if it is offensive, runs across every grain in my body.
Is there an answer to my question embedded in there ?
Is MANBLA a group that enjoys constitutional protection ? Or should they be prosecuted under RICO statutes ?
http://www.ricoact.com/
Is MANBLA a group that enjoys constitutional protection ? Or should they be prosecuted under RICO statutes ?
http://www.ricoact.com/
Last edited by a moderator:
If they are activily pursuing children, that would be illegal and should be dealt with accordingly. It does seem to me, from what little I have read, that the goal (can it be called that?) of this group is highly immoral, but if all they are doing is talking, that would be free speech in my mind. Not a lawyer, so I would defer to the experts on this one.
go2church said:
Oddly enough, I don't seem to have free speech rights at the airport if I want to discuss the finer nuances of bomb-making, even if I do not have a bomb nor an interest in making one. I also suspect that if I were to discuss ways to assassinate the president on a public board, even if I were not really considering it, I would be rounded up by the secret service. So why should NAMBLA have the right to discuss their illicit and currently illegal desires? Isn't free speech a real quagmire at times?
KeithS said:
No doubt about it, as I posted just a few posts ago. I don't know the exact right answer on this one. There are limits to free speech, as you and I have noted. I guess the question becomes, where do you draw the line? It is clear that for some the ACLU advocates drawing it in the wrong place. That is why I don't think it is wise nor is it always accurate to vilify the ACLU. That is why I posted the news article about the ACLU and Pat Robertson being on the same side of a recent Supreme Court case. Very odd indeed.
Pat Robertson should read the scriptures that warn against yolking up with these groups. Only bad things happen when the word of God is compromised.
The ACLU certainly isn't my friend.
The ACLU certainly isn't my friend.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Yolking up? Curtis, you crack me up!Bro. Curtis said:
