J
JMJ_Pinoy
Guest
Last time I checked, the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not promote pedophilia and communism.
- Status
C
Catholic2003
Guest
The Bill of Rights applies to all citizens, even pedophiles and communists.Last time I checked, the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not promote pedophilia and communism.
J
JMJ_Pinoy
Guest
That doesn’t make pedophilia or communism legal. The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not promote such things, but the ACLU does.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
The First Amendment does make communism legal, McCarthyism notwithstanding. And in response to my question, no one has provided a single example of the ACLU promoting pedophilia.
J
JMJ_Pinoy
Guest
I beg to differ…
traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/ACLU.pdf.
The ACLU claims it is defending freedom of speech when it defends the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) for its role in promoting the sexual abuse of children on its web site. The ACLU is defending this pedophile group for its part in encouraging two homosexuals to kill and later sodomize 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley in Boston in 1997.
G
gilliam
Guest
I don’t know whose rights the ACLU were championing here. More likely they were furthering another agenda.
Catholics ordered to offer birth control
cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/01/church.contraceptives.ap/
Catholics ordered to offer birth control
cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/01/church.contraceptives.ap/
J
JMJ_Pinoy
Guest
Your Catholic Voice Defends The Right To Life Of Terri Schiavo;
Challenges ACLU
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, October 24, 2003
***Fournier: “If Anyone’s Human Rights and Civil Liberties Have Been Violated Here It Has Been Terri Schiavo’s.” ***
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Your Catholic Voice Foundation President and Co-founder Keith Fournier challenged the American Civil Liberties Union to specify how anyone?s civil liberties -EXCEPT TERRI SCHIAVO?S- are being violated in the right-to-live case in Florida. Fournier, who is also a constitutional lawyer, said the suggestion that the civil liberties of Schiavo?s husband Michael have somehow been violated is absurd.
“If anyone’s human rights and civil liberties have been violated here it has been Terri Schiavo’s. The Right to life from conception to natural death and the liberty to be protected from efforts to take your life because your disability makes you somehow “inconvenient” is what is really at issue here. One would think an organization like the ACLU, which purports to defend Civil Liberties, would be fighting to protect Terri’s right to live and not endorsing an effort to euthanize her through withholding food and water. The Florida Legislature and Governor Jeb Bush finally acted to save Terri’s life from starvation by judicial fiat. Why would the ACLU take this case on behalf of man who wants to end his wife’s life when her parents and family are perfectly willing to care for her?” Fournier said.
Fournier, who drafted a legal memorandum outlining how Gov. Bush could proceed with rescuing Ms. Schiavo, even before the passage of the emergency legislation which prompted his action, said if the ACLU is concerned that other state legislatures will adopt laws similar to “Terri’s Law” in Florida, it raises even more questions about the highly controversial organization and its agenda.
“The ACLU has recently been at the forefront of promoting both policy and legal efforts to define “freedom” as a raw power over others who are weaker; for example children in the first home of their mothers womb, and to stifle the voice of those who disagree with their notion of the role of people of faith in our pluralist society. Now, they are taking on the disabled. In some ways, this move by them is not a surprise to us. We will debate them on this issue anytime, anywhere,” Fournier said.
yourcatholicvoice.org/index.php?id=press&press=22
Challenges ACLU
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, October 24, 2003
***Fournier: “If Anyone’s Human Rights and Civil Liberties Have Been Violated Here It Has Been Terri Schiavo’s.” ***
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Your Catholic Voice Foundation President and Co-founder Keith Fournier challenged the American Civil Liberties Union to specify how anyone?s civil liberties -EXCEPT TERRI SCHIAVO?S- are being violated in the right-to-live case in Florida. Fournier, who is also a constitutional lawyer, said the suggestion that the civil liberties of Schiavo?s husband Michael have somehow been violated is absurd.
“If anyone’s human rights and civil liberties have been violated here it has been Terri Schiavo’s. The Right to life from conception to natural death and the liberty to be protected from efforts to take your life because your disability makes you somehow “inconvenient” is what is really at issue here. One would think an organization like the ACLU, which purports to defend Civil Liberties, would be fighting to protect Terri’s right to live and not endorsing an effort to euthanize her through withholding food and water. The Florida Legislature and Governor Jeb Bush finally acted to save Terri’s life from starvation by judicial fiat. Why would the ACLU take this case on behalf of man who wants to end his wife’s life when her parents and family are perfectly willing to care for her?” Fournier said.
Fournier, who drafted a legal memorandum outlining how Gov. Bush could proceed with rescuing Ms. Schiavo, even before the passage of the emergency legislation which prompted his action, said if the ACLU is concerned that other state legislatures will adopt laws similar to “Terri’s Law” in Florida, it raises even more questions about the highly controversial organization and its agenda.
“The ACLU has recently been at the forefront of promoting both policy and legal efforts to define “freedom” as a raw power over others who are weaker; for example children in the first home of their mothers womb, and to stifle the voice of those who disagree with their notion of the role of people of faith in our pluralist society. Now, they are taking on the disabled. In some ways, this move by them is not a surprise to us. We will debate them on this issue anytime, anywhere,” Fournier said.
yourcatholicvoice.org/index.php?id=press&press=22
J
JMJ_Pinoy
Guest
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Free speech means free speech for everyone, even pedophiles. If you want to live in a country that only allows “good” free speech, then move to France.
G
gilliam
Guest
Instructing people on how to commit and get away with the crime of molesting little boys, IMHO, is not free speech. How can a Catholic support such a thing?
B
Bob_Baran
Guest
As you know, there are many Catholics in “name only”!
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Okay, show me one country where the government decides what “free speech” will be allowed, and which hasn’t decended into totalitarianism or a nightmare of political correctness.
The right of free speech is so important that sometimes you have defend the free speech of those you disagree with. Obviously, you must understand this on some level, or you would have moved to France by now.
When the courts release a child molester because the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights, it isn’t because they are in favor of child molestation; it is because that is the only way that works to protect everyone’s right not to live in a police state.
Don’t they teach this stuff in civics class anymore?
C
Catholic2003
Guest
The California law that requires this is certainly misguided, but it is the legislature that passed the law that you should be upset with. All the ACLU is trying to do here is to make sure that all organizations comply with the laws of the state. Or maybe you would like to live in a country where people and organizations could flout any law they disagreed with?
T
Trelow
Guest
If a law is contrary to moral law then it is no law at all.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Freedom of speech does not protect those whose speech incites others to commit a crime. Molesting minor boys IS a crime. Ergo, if the ACLU supports the right of NAMBLA to promote molesting little boys, they are trying to protect would be criminals.
There ARE limitations to free speech in this country, the most notable example is the “you can’t yell FIRE in a crowded theater.” There have also been several cases, including those by some radical prolife groups where their websites promoted criminal behavior and they were silenced and fined. I didn’t see ACLU trying to protect THAT “freedom of speech” did you? Nor should it have been protected. Similarly NAMBLA is promoting actions that are not only reprehensible but illegal. THey do not deserve nor are they entitled to protection based on the same standard. That they consistently ally themselves with the homosexual agenda seems way too convenient for me to accept them as an unbiased organization simply trying to protect our freedom.
Lisa N
S
sbcoral
Guest
I read a little about the ACLU-NAMBLA business. It’s interesting. NAMBLA officially advocates changing the legal age of sexual consent; it does not advocate breaking the law or committing crimes. The legal case mentioned involved the parents of a 10 year old boy who was molested and killed by two guys, at least one of whom was a NAMBLA member. The parents sued NAMBLA for 200 million dollars, claiming their ideas led to the murder of their son. But NAMBLA was not responsible for their son’s murder, and again their official position only involves changing laws, and the 1st amendment guarantees them the right to say stuff like that. It took a lot of guts for the ACLU to take this case, as NAMBLA is obviously a reprehensible group.
The direct parallel here is groups like Right to Life. When an abortionist is murdered, should the family of the victim be able to sue Right to Life, claiming their rhetoric and statements led to the murder? No, because, like NAMBLA, RTL only advocates changing laws, not breaking them.
As a side note, the ACLU also defended the rights of pro-life protestors to protest outside Bill Clinton’s inauguration in 1992, even though the ACLU is a pro-choice group.
I think the ACLU is an admirable group overall.
B
Brad
Guest
NAMBLA is a group of perverts that dream about molesting and raping children. Their promotion of debauchery and wicked practices that are not only reprehensible in terms of morals but also prey on innocent children leaves one place for their non-repentant eternal souls - the worst level of Hell. If someone from this group ends up killing someone, it is a natural extension of the death of the soul and dignity that they promote. It took a lot of sympathy for evil for the ACLU to take the case. The people in this group should be in jail.
Right to Life groups, on the other hand, defend the most innocent of our society from a defenseless and heinous attack on their life by someone with full medical knowledge, tools, and skills. Right to Life groups DEFEND life. If someone protesting abortion goes out and kills someone, it is the exact opposite of everything the pro-life movement stands for.
There is no jusifiable comparison of the 2 groups in this manner.
The ACLU spends mine and your tax dollars to strike God out of every possible public place imaginable. Taking God out of everything is the last thing we need - it is lack of God that is at the root of child suicides, child sexual diseases, child killings, child depression, and child intimidation. This is the kind of environment the ACLU promotes when it does everything from not allowing bands to play Christmas carols to carving out the 10 commandments (what “horrible” guidelines) from every vestige of society. On top of that, they have no basis in law or in the constitution for any of this nonsense. They are not admirable - they are anti-God. For all the separation of church and state talk that anti-God individuals want to promote, here are some facts:
Thomas Jefferson gave government money to start Churches.
The purpose of the First Ammendment was to keep the government out of the Church, not religon out of the government. Specifically, it was intended to disallow the Federal Government from not allowing the states to have their own religious practices.
More than half the founding fathers had seminary degrees.
All but 3 founding fathers were serious, Church-going Christians - and at least 2 of the remaining 3 wrote about the need of moral law to be influenced by the divine.
Separation of Church and State exist nowhere in the Constitution.
B
Brad
Guest
Free speech does not mean Free license. There are some things you cannot promote and some things you cannot say. You can’t say “Fire” in a crowed movie theatre for fun. You can’t call in bomb-threats to schools. You can’t intimidate someone on the street with threats and curses. You can’t promote killing of females under 8. You can’t promote molestation and rape.
S
sbcoral
Guest
Brad,
You didn’t really understand my post. NAMBLA is a bad, bad group - I agree. But, still, the 1st amendment allows them to express their view that the legal age of sexual consent should be changed. The ACLU defended their 1st amendment rights, that’s all, just like they defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie some years back. The ACLU does not necessarily agree with the statements made by these groups, but agrees with their rights to make those statements.
You didn’t really understand my post. NAMBLA is a bad, bad group - I agree. But, still, the 1st amendment allows them to express their view that the legal age of sexual consent should be changed. The ACLU defended their 1st amendment rights, that’s all, just like they defended the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie some years back. The ACLU does not necessarily agree with the statements made by these groups, but agrees with their rights to make those statements.
B
Brad
Guest
They shouldn’t. See my post on license just above.
The reason they defend Nazis and NAMBLA and vigorously attack Christianity is because they have an ideology largely consisting of Socialism.
They are selective as to the free speech that they want to protect. Those that hold to ideals that Christians would abhor - they protect. Those that say anything Christian - they sue to shut them up.
- Status