The Next Rosa Parks?

Black Dog · June 23, 2006

The ACLU is against far more than that, here's one such case, where they supported legal precedent for a gay club in a high school, but then reveresed their support of the precedent when it was used to argue the establishment of a Christian club in a high school.

Given the source, I'm not surprised at this interpretation. But what's (intentionally) left unclear is whether or not what "recognition" the ACLU wanted for the gay club. It would appear that in that case, the club was being denie dthe right to meet, which the ACLU defended. In this case, the ACLU is not oppossed to the Xtian club's right to meet, but its right to official recognition and funding. IOW (and unsurprisngly) WingNut Daily was twisting the facts.

They also hate the words intelligent design, and of course the big bad ten(cover your eyes!) commandments.

As would any sane person. The former is unscientific hogwash, the latter is some kind of bizzare state-sponsored idolotry.

Melanie_ · June 23, 2006

The ACLU is against far more than that, here's one such case, where they supported legal precedent for a gay club in a high school, but then reveresed their support of the precedent when it was used to argue the establishment of a Christian club in a high school.
They also hate the words intelligent design, and of course the big bad ten(cover your eyes!) commandments.

You'll have to find a more unbiased source than WorldNetDaily to make your point; the article seems to tell about half the story, and is very slanted. I tried to find some information elsewhere about the case and wasn't successful, but I did follow the link to the lawyers' home page. I'd be wary of lawyers who have their own agendas to push - are they out for the best interests of their clients or are they trying to further their own causes?

However, to the point of your post, on the surface I would agree that there should be no barrier to the establishment of a Christian club in a high school, just as there should be no barrier to the establishment of a gay club. As long as no one is compelled to join either one, and members are respectful of those who don't choose to join, what's the problem?

sharkman · June 23, 2006

The ACLU is against far more than that, here's one such case, where they supported legal precedent for a gay club in a high school, but then reveresed their support of the precedent when it was used to argue the establishment of a Christian club in a high school.

They also hate the words intelligent design, and of course the big bad ten(cover your eyes!) commandments.

You'll have to find a more unbiased source than WorldNetDaily to make your point; the article seems to tell about half the story, and is very slanted. I tried to find some information elsewhere about the case and wasn't successful, but I did follow the link to the lawyers' home page. I'd be wary of lawyers who have their own agendas to push - are they out for the best interests of their clients or are they trying to further their own causes?

However, to the point of your post, on the surface I would agree that there should be no barrier to the establishment of a Christian club in a high school, just as there should be no barrier to the establishment of a gay club. As long as no one is compelled to join either one, and members are respectful of those who don't choose to join, what's the problem?

Oh come on, people! Liam linked 2 or 3 articles defending the aclu and they were from the ACLU website, and I didn't notice any of you saying boo about it. At least my source is independant of the two involved in the legal goings on.

And so, Melanie, it would appear that 1) The ACLU is against more than prayer in schools and 2) You disagree with them on this one, since they are against the establishment of the Christian club.

BD, I realize that the big 10 are not your cup of tea, but they are also not state sponsored anything in the U.S.

Melanie_ · June 23, 2006

:huh: I don't know how I've gotten myself into defending the ACLU, an organization I'm marginally familiar with, but here goes anyway.

My understanding is the ACLU is against government or establishment endorsment of any religion, regardless of which one it is. Prayer in school implies that the school is endorsing a particular religion, or religion in general, regardless of the individual beliefs of the students and their families. Individual rights to religious expression are defended, as seen in the article below...

.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html

NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.
The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.

"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."

In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.

sharkman · June 23, 2006

Pardon my weakness, but I can't help but notice you used a less than objective source(ACLU) after pointing out my such use. I'm sure they've got a handpicked catalog of such seemingly pro-religious freedom articles for their followers(not suggesting that you are one) to trot out.

Nonetheless, the case I cited shows they are mighty choosey when it comes to the freedom of religion. It seems like splitting hairs to me, they defend the right of a kid to sing a Christian song in a public meeting, yet are against the forming of a Christian club that would meet in private. I know, I know, the devil's in the details!

Melanie_ · June 23, 2006

Johnny Utah said that the ACLU hated Christianity, and you implied that they were unreasonably opposed to any displays of Christianity. Therefore, I went to the source, the ACLU website, to see what their position was and how they applied it. Here is their position:

http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html

Religious Liberty:
The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The ACLU works to ensure that religious liberty is protected by keeping the government out of religion. Learn more about the ACLU's Defense of Religious Liberty and take action to protect the rights guaranteed to all Americans.

I've spent some time looking at different cases listed on their website, and haven't come across the one you mentioned, although I found the original case where the gay club was granted their status. But in looking at just a few of the dozens that are listed, I haven't seen anything that contradicts the position above. Individual religious freedom is defended, regardless of the religion, and state or school sponsored religion is challenged. I like it.

Liam · June 23, 2006

Oh come on, people! Liam linked 2 or 3 articles defending the aclu and they were from the ACLU website, and I didn't notice any of you saying boo about it. At least my source is independant of the two involved in the legal goings on...

Not entirely true, one was the actual amicus brief the ACLU filed before a court of law on the student's behalf. In any event, none of the pieces I posted were opinion pieces. Each can be independently corroborated. NewsMax and WorldNetDaily are largely right-wing editorial and opinion websites. Using either one as a basis of a fact-based argument is akin to using Air America, Rush Limbaugh or Pravda.

Liam · June 23, 2006

Oh come on, people! Liam linked 2 or 3 articles defending the aclu and they were from the ACLU website, and I didn't notice any of you saying boo about it. At least my source is independant of the two involved in the legal goings on...

I already posted the link to the amicus brief filed by the ACLU in favor of someone's right to express Christian faith in a public school, so I won't belabor that one.

Here's the AP text reporting the yearbook case:

<<<STERLING HEIGHTS, Mich. (AP) — The American Civil Liberties Union, perhaps better known for helping keep religion out of the classroom, came to the defense of a high school graduate whose yearbook entry was censored because it contained a biblical verse.

Moler, the class of 2001 valedictorian, was among a group of students asked by school officials to offer their thoughts for the yearbook. Her entry included the biblical verse, Jeremiah 29:11: "`For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, `plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'"

The entry was deleted from the yearbook because of its religious nature, school officials told Moler at the time. She responded by asking the ACLU for help.

"We wanted to shed some light on this issue in the public schools," Moler told the Detroit Free Press for a Wednesday story. "There just seemed to be a lot of confusion and misunderstanding surrounding this issue."

Under the settlement, the school district agreed to place a sticker with Moler's original entry in copies of the yearbook on file at the high school; ordered current yearbook staff to not censor other religious or political speech; to train its staff on free speech and religious freedom issues; and to write Moler a letter of regret.

"The Supreme Court has said there can be school oversight in official publications, but the schools still have to honor the constitutional rights of their students," said Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan.

"I'm thrilled," Moler said. "We got everything we asked for. I received a wonderful education from Utica schools and now that I'm entering the teaching profession, I wanted to do my part in maintaining the excellence in education."

Utica school officials would not comment on the settlement, according to the Free Press and The Detroit News.>>>

And here's a link to the court opinion regarding the Boston subway advertisements: http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn...ION=03-1970.01A

So do you still think these corroborated stories are still equal to the opinion pieces you cite to support your belief that the ACLU is fighting against Christianity? Seriously, you are just regurgitating the "intellectual" poison fed to you by conservative bloggers, media and talk radio.

BHS · June 23, 2006

Dislike isn't relative. If I say I dislike liver it's not because I prefer steak, it's because I can't stand the taste of liver. There's no relative component to the concept.

I see. So when write out a list of all the things you dislike there is equality between them all? All things you dislike you dislike equally? The word dislike is an absolute statement? Like "four" or "affirmative"?

No, like "good" or "bad" and "love" and "hate", dislike IS a relative statement. Unless you "love" steak equally as much as your wife, or you "dislike" eating liver equally as much as you "dislike" finding a toenail in your ice-cream.

By all accounts those words are relative and require context.

This is ridiculous. Dislike in no way requires a comparative to be valid, any more than like does - it is completely valid as an unqualified absolute. When you tell your mother you love her you aren't required to qualify it by comparing her to cinnamon toast, which you merely enjoy. I don't know where you got this idea from, but it seems to me you're just being contrarian and petty.

As for the rest of your, um, critique, I'll say this - I won't make the mistake of faking enthusiasm over any of your proclivities anymore. My smart ass is getting sore, for no good reason.

If by that you mean that you now realize you shouldn't have been snotty or at least shouldn't have been so without expecting return treatment of the same, well alright then. No biggie. Misunderstandings like this happen all the time and I suppose this one can last as long as either of us wants it to.

.

Look, if anyone is being snotty it's the guy who can't quit with the endless ad hominem attacks, being you. I mean, you can't even let it go long enough to accept me resignation from the argument without lecturing me on how snotty I've been, again resorting to cheap ad hominem. Good arguing skillz, hombre.

killjoy · June 23, 2006

Good arguing skillz, hombre.

Right back at you asshole. Gonna strike a match like you did and you might get burnt. You sit there and act all innocent with all your gibberish about “ad hominem attacks” as though you were above it, but there is no denying this all started with your cheap shot. You’re like the guy who picks a fight at the bar and then complains because the guy he pissed off is “so violent”, just because he didn’t stop hitting when you figured he should, or that the insults you were throwing his way shouldn’t have warranted a fight at all. When you start something you don’t get to determine when it stops….so, how do they say in Ontario? Oh yeah: “Fuck you”.

You can go ahead and whine on and on about MY attacks and MY continuation of this, but here you are --- carrying on after it's long over --- another one of your tits for my tat. Go ahead and pretend you're better I don't really care.

You're as bad as the other goof who claims I'm obsessed with Ann because I'm arguing with you about crap besides her....continually using my 7 posts as proof I'm obsessed, meanwhile the dork has about 80 posts dedicated to defending her on another thread....lol.....it's so obvious he's in love with her. Shit. Is there even one honest person here besides me?

I was out of this. You came back to start it up.

BTW : Exactly what where the 'arguing skills' you were showing off? Man, little whiney crybaby pinheads like you really piss me off. You shouldn't be posting here at all if you're going to start crap then cry about it.

Oh, and this:

This is ridiculous. Dislike in no way requires a comparative to be valid, any more than like does - it is completely valid as an unqualified absolute. When you tell your mother you love her you aren't required to qualify it by comparing her to cinnamon toast, which you merely enjoy. I don't know where you got this idea from, but it seems to me you're just being contrarian and petty.
.

Answer this question: If you love french fries and you love your wife, do you love them equally?

I never said it requires another statement, I said it is inherently a relative statement, and you're just trying as hard as your little brain can to find a way to not understand these basics I know you already know. Read the statement again without being such a tit and sooner or later you're going to know exactly what I mean. There is no argument here. I’m right; you’re wrong and not even making sense. That’s all there is to it. It's the plain dynamics of English. If you don't understand then go ask an English teacher. Words like that are value judgments which use the context to determine their relativity. These words like "dislike", and "hate" are indeed relative terms. I'm not going to argue the point; it's like arguing that the sky is in a general 'up' direction. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word ‘relative’?

I'd really like to see you post back here pretending to not understand the relative difference between the two meanings of the word 'love' in that sentance.

.

sharkman · June 24, 2006

Oh come on, people! Liam linked 2 or 3 articles defending the aclu and they were from the ACLU website, and I didn't notice any of you saying boo about it. At least my source is independant of the two involved in the legal goings on...

Not entirely true, one was the actual amicus brief the ACLU filed before a court of law on the student's behalf. In any event, none of the pieces I posted were opinion pieces. Each can be independently corroborated. NewsMax and WorldNetDaily are largely right-wing editorial and opinion websites. Using either one as a basis of a fact-based argument is akin to using Air America, Rush Limbaugh or Pravda.

Well, Liam, it would be impossible to find a critical word from a left wing website now wouldn't it? If the right wing ones all find fault with the ACLU does that automatically mean they're all wrong? The link that started this thread was more than just an opinion piece and I automatically discount any thread you offer that has aclu.org in it's address. Go ahead and support them if you wish but don't assume I've eaten, what did you say, intellectual poison, just because I happen to find fault with them.

BHS · June 24, 2006

Good arguing skillz, hombre.

Right back at you asshole. Gonna strike a match like you did and you might get burnt. You sit there and act all innocent with all your gibberish about “ad hominem attacks” as though you were above it, but there is no denying this all started with your cheap shot. You’re like the guy who picks a fight at the bar and then complains because the guy he pissed off is “so violent”, just because he didn’t stop hitting when you figured he should, or that the insults you were throwing his way shouldn’t have warranted a fight at all. When you start something you don’t get to determine when it stops….so, how do they say in Ontario? Oh yeah: “Fuck you”.

You can go ahead and whine on and on about MY attacks and MY continuation of this, but here you are --- carrying on after it's long over --- another one of your tits for my tat. Go ahead and pretend you're better I don't really care.

You're as bad as the other goof who claims I'm obsessed with Ann because I'm arguing with you about crap besides her....continually using my 7 posts as proof I'm obsessed, meanwhile the dork has about 80 posts dedicated to defending her on another thread....lol.....it's so obvious he's in love with her. Shit. Is there even one honest person here besides me?

I was out of this. You came back to start it up.

BTW : Exactly what where the 'arguing skills' you were showing off? Man, little whiney crybaby pinheads like you really piss me off. You shouldn't be posting here at all if you're going to start crap then cry about it.

Oh, and this:

This is ridiculous. Dislike in no way requires a comparative to be valid, any more than like does - it is completely valid as an unqualified absolute. When you tell your mother you love her you aren't required to qualify it by comparing her to cinnamon toast, which you merely enjoy. I don't know where you got this idea from, but it seems to me you're just being contrarian and petty.
.

Answer this question: If you love french fries and you love your wife, do you love them equally?

I never said it requires another statement, I said it is inherently a relative statement, and you're just trying as hard as your little brain can to find a way to not understand these basics I know you already know. Read the statement again without being such a tit and sooner or later you're going to know exactly what I mean. There is no argument here. I’m right; you’re wrong and not even making sense. That’s all there is to it. It's the plain dynamics of English. If you don't understand then go ask an English teacher. Words like that are value judgments which use the context to determine their relativity. These words like "dislike", and "hate" are indeed relative terms. I'm not going to argue the point; it's like arguing that the sky is in a general 'up' direction. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word ‘relative’?

I'd really like to see you post back here pretending to not understand the relative difference between the two meanings of the word 'love' in that sentance.

.

You better watch you language, dude. People have been kicked out of here for that kind of trash.

I was going to let the matter drop, but you had to get the last little dig in by chastising me for snottiness after all of crap you'd posted about me, as if you were completely blameless and I was some sort of aggressor. That doesn't stand, especially after this post.

I take it as given that for our argument about "like" "dislike" "love" and "hate" being relative or absolute terms you'll accept the definitions provided by Princeton University, since indeed you asked me to resort to a higher educational authority. Go ahead and follow the link, and type any one of those terms into the search engine. Examine all of the verbal definitions for those words, and show me where any one of them is defined in relative terms. You can't, because the words are absolute and require no further qualification. Deal with it.

killjoy · June 24, 2006

Examine all of the verbal definitions for those words, and show me where any one of them is defined in relative terms.

So you point me to a dictionary. Marvellous. It's not even a good one. You got me. A dictionary is nice BHS, but that doesn’t teach you how to use the English language. If that were true they'd just hand out the dictionary in high school English courses and walk out of the room.

I can tell you haven't even really thought about what you say here, probably because you have your panties in a twist and it's cutting off the air to your brain:

You can't, because the words are absolute and require no further qualification.

Oh really? Wrong. English is a language that requires connotation and intuition to achieve understanding of the words one uses in relative context of how they are being used. Simple definitions don’t do that. Example:

I have a red pencil-box.

Do I have a pencil-box that is red? Or do I have a pencil-box I only use to keep my red pencils in? Without connotation you don't know and the dictionary won't tell you. If I say I love my Wife and I love French Fries one needs to be able to understand the relative connotation or they would believe I love both equally. A word like love, dislike, bad, good, big, small these have definitive meanings yes, but undefined usage.

While you have that dictionary handy maybe you should look up connotation: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/connotation

"connotation (what you must know in order to determine the reference of an expression)

# The act or process of connoting.

1. An idea or meaning suggested by or associated with a word or thing: Hollywood holds connotations of romance and glittering success.

2. The set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning."

Which will lead us to intension:

1. The state or quality of being intense; intensity.

2. The act of becoming intense or more intense; intensification.

3. Logic. The sum of the attributes contained in a term.

All of the above are not simply words you can use in a sentence but descriptions of language usage. In this case the idea that you need intuition or a relative bearing to understand how someone is using a word and to what degree.

Finally just in case:

Relative:

# Considered in comparison with something else: the relative quiet of the suburbs.

# Dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute.

When you say you love your wife or you love French fries one needs to understand the connotation, intention and relativity of the word 'love' in it's relation to either French Fries or your wife.

I notice you dodged the question about if you say you love French Fries and you love your wife. I guess that means there is no relative difference between how much you love either. I guess you love them like you love rainbows, your children and the way you love the smell of leather binding on a book. Yep, the dictionary will tell us precisely how much you love them.

Whatever BHS. You win smart-ass...and I did just"deal with it." :blink:

"I was going to let the matter drop..."

"I was going to be 'more adult' than you but I'm not..."

lol.

.

Liam · June 24, 2006

Oh come on, people! Liam linked 2 or 3 articles defending the aclu and they were from the ACLU website, and I didn't notice any of you saying boo about it. At least my source is independant of the two involved in the legal goings on...

Not entirely true, one was the actual amicus brief the ACLU filed before a court of law on the student's behalf. In any event, none of the pieces I posted were opinion pieces. Each can be independently corroborated. NewsMax and WorldNetDaily are largely right-wing editorial and opinion websites. Using either one as a basis of a fact-based argument is akin to using Air America, Rush Limbaugh or Pravda.

Well, Liam, it would be impossible to find a critical word from a left wing website now wouldn't it? If the right wing ones all find fault with the ACLU does that automatically mean they're all wrong? The link that started this thread was more than just an opinion piece and I automatically discount any thread you offer that has aclu.org in it's address. Go ahead and support them if you wish but don't assume I've eaten, what did you say, intellectual poison, just because I happen to find fault with them.

I never asked you to give up your criticism of the ACLU -- I've got my own. HOWEVER, someone started us down the path of "ACLU-war-on-Christianity" which is utter, 100%, certifiable BULL SH^T. The ACLU is a group that argues for individuals' Constitutional rights. They frequently defend and/or support right wingers -- but do you think Rush Limbaugh would let such news seep into his daily tirades?? Why would he, the ACLU is a favored punching bag of those who so frequently violate the civil liberties of US citizens (aka, the very conservatives the ACLU often defends).

I provided links to to news releases on the ACLU website that showed their support of religious liberties in the "public square" (in these cases, public schools). I then followed them up with either a third party new source or a (friggin') brief filed before a court that corroborated the claims made in those same ACLU press releases. Ergo, the ACLU news releases were verified by a third party source. Their factuality has been established. Do you still deny their authenticity? Your lack of willingness to even consider independent third party sources indicates to me that you have, in fact, swallowed the anti-ACLU poison.

Do a google search of your own. Are you man enough to learn the truth, or are you still going to fall into the spoon-fed mantra that the ACLU eats babies, burns crosses and converts your daughters to anti-American lesbians? I thought most of the people around here were smarter than that.

BHS · June 24, 2006

I notice you dodged the question about if you say you love French Fries and you love your wife. I guess that means there is no relative difference between how much you love either. I guess you love them like you love rainbows, your children and the way you love the smell of leather binding on a book. Yep, the dictionary will tell us precisely how much you love them.

I've stated, emphatically, that the term "love" requires no comparative for proper usage. To which you replied that in every case a comparative is required, which I've proven is simply incorrect. The term "love' can be used to indicate different levels of emotional attachment, that is true, but using the term doesn't imply a requirement to specify the degree to which the attachment manifests. I didn't dodge this question, because my general answer proved that the question is irrelevant and didn't need to be specifically addressed.

To recap: I stated that you "hate" Ann Coulter, which by the dictionary definition is an acceptable absolute usage of the term. (By the way, if the work published by Princeton University is unsatisfactory to you, by all means, use any dictionary you like.) Not only am I not required to qualify this statement with a comparative, but for to do so would be unnecessarily verbose. (Not that I'm against being unnecessarily verbose. I love the sound of my own keyboard.)

killjoy · June 24, 2006

I stated that you "hate" Ann Coulter, which by the dictionary definition is an acceptable absolute usage of the term. (By the way, if the work published by Princeton University is unsatisfactory to you, by all means, use any dictionary you like.)

Yes and you were wrong and you had absolutely no good reason to think I hate her. On top of that you were a pompous tart about it.

(gc1765 @ Jun 20 2006, 03:30 PM) *

QUOTE(killjoy @ Jun 20 2006, 12:00 PM) *

I think your post may have had merit until you brought her up. Ann Coulter has never opened her mouth or typed a sentence and been right at the same time, in her entire life.

This is a woman who said Canadians went to Vietnam and continued to try and pound that square peg into the round hole no matter how much the Canadian journalist (who was a journalist during those years as well) tried politely to inform her of her mistake.

Interviewer: "No, Canadians never went to Vietnam."

Ann: "Oh I'm pretty sure they did...".

LOL! There's really no arguing with people like this and both the Left and the Right are full of them. Obviously she knows she's wrong at this point and just refuses to admit it....you know, with her "superior intellect" and all.

Excellent Post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Yay! You both hate Ann Coulter. Good for you. Moving on...

The phrase "Canadians never went to Vietnam" is incorrect because it implies that no one with Canadian citizenship joined the American armed forces for the express purpose of going to Vietnam. This is probably not what Coulter meant, but stating pointedly that Canadians did not go to Vietnam is factually off the mark.

I had every right to reply about Ann Coulter because the initial post was half based on it:

Ann Coulter was right to describe these people as Godless. Bravo Brittney McComb! smile.gif

I took exception to this, not because I'm a "liberal" (lol) but because she's always uttered the stupidest things, this was one of them. It's really quite bizarre that you and Sharkman need to immediately jump on me for "bringing her up" and "being obsessed with her" and "Hating her". I pointed out quite effectively with the help of an actual interview quote from gc why she's the sort of person who just loathes the facts and realities....kind of like you and sharkie-pooh.

I was well in my right to say what I said the way I said it, and well within the topic of the initial post. Don't wanna hear about Ann? Don't bring her up. Don't say she was right when it's clear she simply forgotten to take her medication.

So again: Tough. Eat it. Go run to the nearest moderator. Have a little cry. Try to save face. Maybe you and sharkie-baby just STFU next time?

You’ll receive a bill for the English lesson. Have a nice day.

.

sharkman · June 24, 2006

Hey, BHS, get a load of this killer guy. I wonder why he hates Ann so much.

So, Liam, what's with you and the eating analogies? So far you've used Spoon feed, can I give you a spoon, perhaps this dish is more to your taste, and regurgitating intellectual poison. Are you on a diet or something?

I suggest new analogies, sports is a topic just teaming with analogies!. Cause so far the food thing hasn't convinced me about much concerning the ACLU. I've googled them and I think they defend your brand of religion more than mine. But I have to allow that I'm surprised that they are defending any brand of religion whatsoever.

BHS · June 24, 2006

So again: Tough. Eat it. Go run to the nearest moderator. Have a little cry. Try to save face. Maybe you and sharkie-baby just STFU next time?
You’ll receive a bill for the English lesson. Have a nice day.

Again, I didn't bring Coulter up. I made a throw away joke reference about you and (I don't even remember who else at this point) "hating" Ann Coulter based solely on the tone of your language. At this point your subsequent vitriol seems to have borne that premise out. The intent of my post was actually to clarify the point that Canadians did in fact serve in Vietnam, which I felt was made unclear by the snippets of the interview that had been quoted. I don't care about Ann Coulter, and again, I'm not defending her.

As for running to the moderator, I don't play that game. I've had the moderators come after me a number of times for things I've posted and it's a somewhat irritating way for an argument to end, I know. If I was going to run to the moderators about your trash talk you'd have already heard from them. You are completely off-base when you accused me of being whiny and not being able to take it. The bulk of the thread is me taking it from you and being restrained and civilized in return, which seems to be more of a provocation to you than if I'd just blown up and replied in kind. I get the feeling you're one of those guys at the bar with whom it's a bad idea to make eye contact.

And the bill for the English lesson? You should be paying me.

killjoy · June 24, 2006

I get the feeling you're one of those guys at the bar with whom it's a bad idea to make eye contact.

lol.

Yeah whatever BHS. You're so innocent. So civilized. So victimized. I was so cruel. So barbaric. The things I said to you...tsk tsk...how can I ever live with myself? I get the feeling you're one of those guys you mouths off in a bar till someone clocks him and then he wonders what he did.

Again, I didn't bring Coulter up.

"Again"? Who said you did? Perhaps you have a comprehension problem as well as a weak understanding of English. I think it's obvious I never claimed you brought Couter up, I pointed out how I made one post about her based on the opening post of the thread. Maybe you did think you were making a joke, as far as I'm concerned you were being a pissy snot. It wasn't one throw away joke reference. You kept on and on about it:

"Oh well you maybe dont hate her but you cetainly dislike her...."

"Define dislike. That's a relative statment."

"No it's not. There's no such thing as a relative statment. Here's a dictionary to prove it" -- lol.

And it goes on and on from there. Yeah. You're so innocent. So above it all.

Lets agree to ignore each other then. You can have the last word.

.

Liam · June 24, 2006

... So, Liam, what's with you and the eating analogies? So far you've used Spoon feed, can I give you a spoon, perhaps this dish is more to your taste, and regurgitating intellectual poison. Are you on a diet or something?
I suggest new analogies, sports is a topic just teaming with analogies!. Cause so far the food thing hasn't convinced me about much concerning the ACLU. I've googled them and I think they defend your brand of religion more than mine. But I have to allow that I'm surprised that they are defending any brand of religion whatsoever.

*LOL... actually, yes, I am on a diet and I didn't notice how uniform I was being in my analogy drawing!! The eating analogy is a bad habit I picked up from a former boss who always used chef/restaurant/food analogies ("...everyone at this table is like a chef who wants to flavor the dish in his own way, and it'll end up tasting like cr^p to the customer..."). Sports provides a huge treasure trove on analogies -- I'll make a concerted effort to spread the love. :lol:

Glad to see that you've done a bit of your own research. I'm not a member of the ACLU, but I am a lawyer and I understand a lot of the work they do. Sometimes they go beyond what I am comfortable with and I occasionally disagree with them, but I think that rightwing bloggers, etc. completely and deliberately mischaracterize the work the ACLU does. (Dogmatic people need *someone* to rail against to justify their own existence, don't they?)

I don't want to be presumptuous, but I think I see where the gap is between us. You think the ACLU is defending one brand of religion over another brand of religion. I think what they're defending is one brand of the social compact over another brand of social compact (i.e., one that allows religious speech where Constitutionally permissible over one that impermissibly merges faith with government functions).

newbie · June 24, 2006

Uh, guys, GET OVER YOURSELVES!!

BHS · June 24, 2006

""

sharkman · July 2, 2006

I never asked you to give up your criticism of the ACLU -- I've got my own. HOWEVER, someone started us down the path of "ACLU-war-on-Christianity" which is utter, 100%, certifiable BULL SH^T. The ACLU is a group that argues for individuals' Constitutional rights. They frequently defend and/or support right wingers -- but do you think Rush Limbaugh would let such news seep into his daily tirades?? Why would he, the ACLU is a favored punching bag of those who so frequently violate the civil liberties of US citizens (aka, the very conservatives the ACLU often defends).
I provided links to to news releases on the ACLU website that showed their support of religious liberties in the "public square" (in these cases, public schools). I then followed them up with either a third party new source or a (friggin') brief filed before a court that corroborated the claims made in those same ACLU press releases. Ergo, the ACLU news releases were verified by a third party source. Their factuality has been established. Do you still deny their authenticity? Your lack of willingness to even consider independent third party sources indicates to me that you have, in fact, swallowed the anti-ACLU poison.

Do a google search of your own. Are you man enough to learn the truth, or are you still going to fall into the spoon-fed mantra that the ACLU eats babies, burns crosses and converts your daughters to anti-American lesbians? I thought most of the people around here were smarter than that.

Here's a link that shows the ACLU sticking their noses into where it doesn't belong once again. A portrait of Jesus hangs in the hall of this high school in West Virginia. It's been there for over 30 years, and the ACLU is suing. They think the picture shouldn't be there, and are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to do more legal arm twisting to have it removed.

The ACLU thinks that having the picture there infers that the school has Christianity as its official religion. Maybe if they had a number of religious pictures, but just one? Further, aren't schools supposed to be the place where a free exchange of ideas takes place? No one saw the harm for 30 years. In Canada, we often have a portrait of the Queen up, but that doesn't mean the school is suggesting she is OUR queen since she's England's queen. Only fearful small minded people get bent out of shape over her portrait.

At the end of the article you find out who exactly has their knickers in a twist. Two parents who don't want their children to so much as even see a picture of Jesus. What sheltered lives these kids must lead.

Melanie_ · July 2, 2006

From your link....

"I frankly cannot understand why this school insists that it is doing nothing wrong," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "This is pretty clear constitutional law. Public schools cannot promote specific religious ideas."

Sharkman, this clearly violates seperation of church and state. A public school is a state run institution. It therefore cannot endorse one religion over another. If that painting were hanging in one of my children's schools I would protest, too.

As for having a picture of the Queen in our schools, on our money, on our stamps, etc... Last time I checked, she was still the official head of our government, represented by the Governor General and a legion of Lieutenant Governors. There are certainly many who oppose this form of government, but it is the one currently in place.