The slippery slope (RE:Ten Commandment Monuments)

[DanceMan]

There's now a group in Idaho that wants to put up an anti-gay monument in a city park, and they give the reasoning that they can because the city has a Ten Commandments monument.

The really funny thing here is that it's some strange bedfellows! The ACLU is actually supporting the group, but mainly because the ACLU is saying, "see, we told you so!"

Anyway, read more about it here.

DanceMan

 

[Zebo]

The ACLU suports the constitutional rights we were lucky enough to be given. They don't care if it's the KKK or the Black Panthers (which they have defended both in free-speech cases before the federal courts). Good org which takes flack from authoritarians.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Zebo
The ACLU suports the constitutional rights we were lucky enough to be given. They don't care if it's the KKK or the Black Panthers (which they have defended both in free-speech cases before the federal courts). Good org which takes flack from authoritarians.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: Zebo
The ACLU suports the constitutional rights we were lucky enough to be given. They don't care if it's the KKK or the Black Panthers (which they have defended both in free-speech cases before the federal courts). Good org which takes flack from authoritarians.

Oh, I'm aware of that. It's just the fact that if there was no Ten commandments monument, the ACLU probably would NOT have supported this group, but because there is, they are now supporting this group, and any other religious group that wants to put up a monument. It just seemed so ironic, that's all.

DanceMan

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Zebo
The ACLU suports the constitutional rights we were lucky enough to be given. They don't care if it's the KKK or the Black Panthers (which they have defended both in free-speech cases before the federal courts). Good org which takes flack from authoritarians.

The ACLU also supports NAMBLA. They would follow the "letter of the law" if it meant cutting off your own hands. They should focus on correcting the laws to make groups like NAMBLA illegal instead of spending donated money supporting their right to rape children.

 

[DanceMan]

I especially like this statement from the story...

Bieter, who is Roman Catholic, said he wants a solution that would keep the Ten Commandments monument in place but deny Phelps.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too...

DanceMan

 

[rjain]

Actually, as a Roman Catholic, he should be supporting Phelps' monument.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Zebo
The ACLU suports the constitutional rights we were lucky enough to be given. They don't care if it's the KKK or the Black Panthers (which they have defended both in free-speech cases before the federal courts). Good org which takes flack from authoritarians.

The ACLU also supports NAMBLA. They would follow the "letter of the law" if it meant cutting off your own hands. They should focus on correcting the laws to make groups like NAMBLA illegal instead of spending donated money supporting their right to rape children.

Dishonest lie. First of all they don't "support" anybody other than the Bill of rights excluding the second amendment. They "defend" their clients constitutional rights. In the Nambla case the argument was a clear violation of the first amendment. They mantianed Nambla, thier website, an org which seeks to overturn age sex concent laws, the material on the site does not promote any kind of criminal behavior which the plaintiffs were allegeing. And it's not wrong to seek the appeal of any law you don't like and advocate for such. That was the issue.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: rjain
Actually, as a Roman Catholic, he should be supporting Phelps' monument.

Not true.. read your catachism.

 

[Zebo]

Just curious Miquel, never mind nambla as they are probably the most controvesial group in the USA today, but do you think it's right for someone to be sued their for ideas or ideals in this country? And how far should we go in allowing this.. You mentioned not likeing "following the "letter of the law" " OK so how far should erode it? Is'nt it a slippery slope?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Zebo
The ACLU suports the constitutional rights we were lucky enough to be given. They don't care if it's the KKK or the Black Panthers (which they have defended both in free-speech cases before the federal courts). Good org which takes flack from authoritarians.

The ACLU also supports NAMBLA. They would follow the "letter of the law" if it meant cutting off your own hands. They should focus on correcting the laws to make groups like NAMBLA illegal instead of spending donated money supporting their right to rape children.

Dishonest lie. First of all they don't "support" anybody other than the Bill of rights excluding the second amendment. They "defend" their clients constitutional rights. In the Nambla case the argument was a clear violation of the first amendment. They mantianed Nambla, thier website, an org which seeks to overturn age sex concent laws, the material on the site does not promote any kind of criminal behavior which the plaintiffs were allegeing. And it's not wrong to seek the appeal of any law you don't like and advocate for such. That was the issue.

Wasn't the "material on their website" instructions on how to lure young boys? How can providing free legal defense not be considered providing support? They saved NAMBLA a lot of money by doing that.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Just curious Miquel, never mind nambla as they are probably the most controvesial group in the USA today, but do you think it's right for someone to be sued their ideas or ideals in this country? And how far should we go in allowing this.. You mentioned not likeing "following the "letter of the law" " OK so how far should erode it?

Exactly my question. How far should we go in defending ideas? I know everyone disagrees with a lot of things, but there has to be some kind of bottom-line morality that every decent person can agree to. I would like to think an organization whose sole motive is to rape young boys is way below the bottom of anyones barrel.

EDIT: You edited your post asking if it was a slipperly slope. A slipperly slope is a fallacy, one which says doing one thing will lead to another worse thing without showing proof of it. So, yes it is a slipperly slope to say that stopping NAMBLA will erode our rights as law-abiding americans.

 

[Witling]

"Rape young boys?" Here's the NAMBLA link. I haven't gone through it because I (1) don't want to and (2) don't feel any responsibility for showing that something doesn't exist. That's called "proving a null hypothesis," and it can't be done in a technical sense. Hey guys, I'm sure we're all interested -- at least I am. Let's cut the crap. Post a link showing an article on NAMBLA about how to seduce boys or "raping" them.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Zebo
The ACLU suports the constitutional rights we were lucky enough to be given. They don't care if it's the KKK or the Black Panthers (which they have defended both in free-speech cases before the federal courts). Good org which takes flack from authoritarians.

The ACLU also supports NAMBLA. They would follow the "letter of the law" if it meant cutting off your own hands. They should focus on correcting the laws to make groups like NAMBLA illegal instead of spending donated money supporting their right to rape children.

Dishonest lie. First of all they don't "support" anybody other than the Bill of rights excluding the second amendment. They "defend" their clients constitutional rights. In the Nambla case the argument was a clear violation of the first amendment. They mantianed Nambla, thier website, an org which seeks to overturn age sex concent laws, the material on the site does not promote any kind of criminal behavior which the plaintiffs were allegeing. And it's not wrong to seek the appeal of any law you don't like and advocate for such. That was the issue.

Wasn't the "material on their website" instructions on how to lure young boys? How can providing free legal defense not be considered providing support? They saved NAMBLA a lot of money by doing that.

THat's not what I've read. And I'm a bit more willing to trust a venerable organization like the ACLU than reactionists who obviously should be repulsed by nambla but carry thier emotions over to ACLU which is doing thier chartered duty. Here's what they have said:

The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves issues of freedom of speech and association.
"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever." ACLU officials said NAMBLA members deny encouraging coercion, rape or violence.
Text

Well ACLU has lost lots of members over the years for their "suupport"... both liberal and conservatives... I personally admire thier stedfastness to uphold those rights however offensive.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Whitling
"Rape young boys?" Here's the NAMBLA link. I haven't gone through it because I (1) don't want to and (2) don't feel any responsibility for showing that something doesn't exist. That's called "proving a null hypothesis," and it can't be done in a technical sense. Hey guys, I'm sure we're all interested -- at least I am. Let's cut the crap. Post a link showing an article on NAMBLA about how to seduce boys or "raping" them.

I dunno Whit. I'm not gonna paruse nambla's web site either. Here's a CNN link to a short article on this issue:

"As a result of reading a NAMBLA bulletin, he came to cope with his feelings and his desires and then he came to realize it's OK to rape little boys and that's what he went and did," Frisoli claims.

Here's another: Wired which shows the ACLUs defending NAMBLAs member's rights to remain anonymous:

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.

The ACLU also will act as a surrogate for NAMBLA, allowing its members to defend themselves in court while remaining anonymous.

 

[Witling]

Holy cucarachas, Miguel.

The article itself says "On its Web site, NAMBLA says it is a political organization that favors repeal of age-of-consent laws, but opposes any form of sexual coercion." Just because someone went and raped a boy doesn't lay it at NAMBLAs feet. That argument would let you sue the NRA if someone got shot. The rape is a criminal act and should be treated as such.

Look deeply into yourself and think about why you were so ready to believe that NAMBLA encouraged "raping boys."

EDITED: By the way, I'm on governor Reagan's list of known heterosexuals. Second marriage, five kids. And, living where I live, I don't think the status of being homosexual is particularly aggregious. But, Miguel, go for the primary sources when available, not the news reports of what those sources say. This is just some people suing NAMBLA. Hell, they could be suing you just as easily.

 

[miguel]

Uh, Whit. Of course they will say that. Here's a retort with equal weight to your "proof":

The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge said the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its website which is now offline incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1, 1997.

 

[Witling]

I edited my previous message. But yes, the family said that. Big deal. Some people say the moon is made of cheese. That doesn't make it true.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Whitling

Look deeply into yourself and think about why you were so ready to believe that NAMBLA encouraged "raping boys."

Why are YOU so ready to believe that they are not? Seriously. To answer your question, it's because they advocate sex with children. That's what they say, right? There is no way you can have sex with a child without raping them. Or is there such a thing as "consent" with a small child?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Whitling
I edited my previous message. But yes, the family said that. Big deal. Some people say the moon is made of cheese. That doesn't make it true.

I can't believe you would say what you just said. If your children are raped and murdered, I hope noone ever repeats your arguments to your face.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Whitling
EDITED: By the way, I'm on governor Reagan's list of known heterosexuals. Second marriage, five kids. And, living where I live, I don't think the status of being homosexual is particularly aggregious. But, Miguel, go for the primary sources when available, not the news reports of what those sources say. This is just some people suing NAMBLA. Hell, they could be suing you just as easily.

Whit, WTF? "This is just some people suing NAMBLA?" They are the parents of the murdered child. A child murdered by sickos who were emboldened by NAMBLA. NAMBLA has no right to exist in ANY civilized society. My respect for you just went waaay out the window.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Zebo
Just curious Miquel, never mind nambla as they are probably the most controvesial group in the USA today, but do you think it's right for someone to be sued their ideas or ideals in this country? And how far should we go in allowing this.. You mentioned not likeing "following the "letter of the law" " OK so how far should erode it?

Exactly my question. How far should we go in defending ideas? I know everyone disagrees with a lot of things, but there has to be some kind of bottom-line morality that every decent person can agree to. I would like to think an organization whose sole motive is to rape young boys is way below the bottom of anyones barrel.

EDIT: You edited your post asking if it was a slipperly slope. A slipperly slope is a fallacy, one which says doing one thing will lead to another worse thing without showing proof of it. So, yes it is a slipperly slope to say that stopping NAMBLA will erode our rights as law-abiding americans.

What I meant was remember our drug discussion? Should I be arrested or fined because I was advocating lagalization of drugs? That's a slippery slope. Society fines or arrests nambla for advocating repeal of age-consent laws where do we stop? Any illegal activity is probibited from seeking it's appeal then. And that's the ACLU's point in "supporting" nambla.

To the first part of you question to my question- speech and freedom of ideas and freedom of association should be free.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Zebo
The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves issues of freedom of speech and association.
"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever." ACLU officials said NAMBLA members deny encouraging coercion, rape or violence.
Text

From your link:

I'm sadden as a Country we have people who don't understand that helping NAMBLA helps them promote sexual abuse of our boy children. A truly dark day in history for children.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Zebo
What I meant was remember our drug discussion? Should I be arrested or fined because I was advocating lagalization of drugs? That's a slippery slope. Society fines or arrests nambla for advocating repeal of age-consent laws where do we stop? Any illegal activity is probibited from seeking it's appeal then. And that's the ACLU's point in "supporting" nambla.

No, you should not be arrested for advocating the legalization of drugs. ACLUs support, by giving them FREE access to powerful lawyers and research facilities, etc helps their organization by allowing them to save $$$. They should have issued a statement, maybe assisted the plaintiffs in clarifying their suits.

NAMBLA could have gone bankrupt had it not been for the ACLU. That's the problem I have with the ACLU. I wonder why they don't offer free help to other organizations, like the NRA? Or do they?

To the first part of you question to my question- speech and freedom of ideas and freedom of association should be free.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not all speech, remember? Shouting "bomb" in a crowded theater is not protected. Neither should helping adults rape children, I think. But hey, I'm a "sheep" and a "Bushie" and "rjain's parents" afterall. *sigh*

 

[Witling]

Miguel, get and watch "A Man for All Seasons." It's about Sir Thomas Moore. He stayed silent on Henry VIII's right to remarry. He was beheaded for it. This was near the start of the Protestant Reformation and Europe was racked by religious wars. Thomas was deeply Catholic. His soon to be son in law wants to set aside the laws that protect Englishmen so he can get the "heretics. Thomas tells him that if he cuts down (ignores) all the laws in England to get at the devil, when those laws have been cut down, the devil will turn and take him. I'm not a big NAMBLA fan. But I do support their right to peacefully advocate reform of the generational sex laws. I don't support the change, but I support their right to urge it. Incidentally, I don't know what your experience with gay people is but many of the males know they are gay by the time they're 12 and want to engage in sex.

Before you wig out and fly off the handle (he said, mixing metaphors). Please note that I am not for abolishing the sex / age limit laws although they are certainly stupid in some respects. Remember whey you were 16?

This movie won a bunch of Oscars in 1966 -- but there are no car chase scenes.