Is The ACLU A PAGAN GROUP?

[JMJ_Pinoy]

jlw:

Cute.

Aren’t you missing your 3:45??

 

[Digitonomy]

Brad:

Good. Then you are opposed to the ACLU’s efforts to require them to accept homosexuals as leaders? You think the ACLU is violating the BSA’s freedom by taking action against them - correct?

Is the ACLU currently making efforts to require the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuals as leaders? I am a bit surprised, after the Dale decision. Do you have a cite?

 

[Trelow]

Jesus said to them in reply, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind regain their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news proclaimed to them. And blessed is the one who takes no offense at me."

 

[Lisa_N]

The ACLU’s latest blather with respect to the right to privacy:

There was a case where a parent overheard a 14 year old daughter talking to her 17 year old boyfriend who bragged about knocking down an old woman and stealing her purse. The mother testified as to what she heard and the boy was convicted. The conviction was overturned by the Washington State Supreme Court because the 14 year old had “an expectation of privacy.”

Unbelieveable.

Of course the ACLU is all for this decision saying parents should not be “spying” on their children. As one commentator pointed out all strong states (can we say communist or fascist) had as an objective, to replace the child/parent bond with a child/state bond. The ACLU in “protecting freedom” is showing its true colors of wanting a “state knows best” society…of course THEY would be in charge. A chilling thought IMO.

This is going to be a real test case because I think that the Washington state legislature will be goaded into action by the extremely negative response to this asinine “progressive” decision.

Lisa N(still trying to find that right to privacy in the Constitution)

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

The ACLU’s latest blather with respect to the right to privacy:

There was a case where a parent overheard a 14 year old daughter talking to her 17 year old boyfriend who bragged about knocking down an old woman and stealing her purse. The mother testified as to what she heard and the boy was convicted. The conviction was overturned by the Washington State Supreme Court because the 14 year old had “an expectation of privacy.”

Unbelieveable.

Of course the ACLU is all for this decision saying parents should not be “spying” on their children. As one commentator pointed out all strong states (can we say communist or fascist) had as an objective, to replace the child/parent bond with a child/state bond. The ACLU in “protecting freedom” is showing its true colors of wanting a “state knows best” society…of course THEY would be in charge. A chilling thought IMO.

This is going to be a real test case because I think that the Washington state legislature will be goaded into action by the extremely negative response to this asinine “progressive” decision.

Lisa N(still trying to find that right to privacy in the Constitution)

What incredibly ignorant talking head (commentator) made that ludicrous comment?

 

[Brad]

Catholic2003:

Maybe the ACLU can explain it to you. You should give them a call; just be sure not to call during their 9:00am-10:00am video conference with the Prince of Darkness, or the 2:30pm-4:00pm virgin sacrifices.

This would be funny except for the number of virgins being sacrificed on the altar of the abortion table inbetween those hours, fully promoted by the ACLU. My conservative numbers say 250 in the United States.

 

[Lisa_N]

Brad:

What incredibly ignorant talking head (commentator) made that ludicrous comment?

Brad, I think you misunderstood. The commenter (someone on the morning news program I didn’t get the name) was making the point that this is EXACTLY why the ACLU is so dangerous. Under the guise of protecting freedoms, they are championing reductions of freedoms including the parent having freedom to control their own child. They want the STATE to insert itself in the middle of the parent child bond. The ACLU would like the STATE to be in charge of children and thus is like some past fascist governments. I agree and this is yet another bit of evidence that the ACLU is only protecting certain self selected freedoms to the detriment of our society.

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

Brad, I think you misunderstood. The commenter (someone on the morning news program I didn’t get the name) was making the point that this is EXACTLY why the ACLU is so dangerous. Under the guise of protecting freedoms, they are championing reductions of freedoms including the parent having freedom to control their own child. They want the STATE to insert itself in the middle of the parent child bond. The ACLU would like the STATE to be in charge of children and thus is like some past fascist governments. I agree and this is yet another bit of evidence that the ACLU is only protecting certain self selected freedoms to the detriment of our society.

Lisa N

I’ll say - I took it completely the opposite. I thought the commentator meant “strong” in terms of “better”. Now I see the light. I wouldn’t be too surprised if some TV personalities would think that way though.

 

[Lisa_N]

Brad:

I’ll say - I took it completely the opposite. I thought the commentator meant “strong” in terms of “better”. Now I see the light. I wouldn’t be too surprised if some TV personalities would think that way though.

Sorry that was probably the wrong word, maybe should have used fascist/communist to begin with because that was the implication.

O’Reilly has real disdain for the ACLU. He brought up their recent crusade against purported torture of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said the reason they are making such a deal about FOREIGN people in FOREIGN countries not being subject to Geneva Convention rules and kid glove treatment is that overall the progressive secularists HATE the military and anything to make the military look bad makes their day. They want to weaken our military, again with the idea that the kumbaya crowd will rule this supposed utopia they are designing.

However since their mission is with respect to AMERICANS this particular crusade is really inappropriate. THese people are neither citizens nor are they protected by our Constitution.

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

Sorry that was probably the wrong word, maybe should have used fascist/communist to begin with because that was the implication.

O’Reilly has real disdain for the ACLU. He brought up their recent crusade against purported torture of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said the reason they are making such a deal about FOREIGN people in FOREIGN countries not being subject to Geneva Convention rules and kid glove treatment is that overall the progressive secularists HATE the military and anything to make the military look bad makes their day. They want to weaken our military, again with the idea that the kumbaya crowd will rule this supposed utopia they are designing.

However since their mission is with respect to AMERICANS this particular crusade is really inappropriate. THese people are neither citizens nor are they protected by our Constitution.

Lisa N

Perhaps they should be renamed the Un-ACLU