The ACLU defends Baptist Protests

[Ben W]

Interesting!

- ACLU: Kentucky Funeral-Protest Law is Unconstitutional
Category: Free Speech

Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church is one of the most notorious anti-gay hate groups in the country. Consisting primarily of members of Phelps' family, it has traveled the country for years picketing funerals--most notoriously, Matthew Shepard's--and many other events that mourn for, celebrate, promote, or acknowledge the lives of lesbians and gay men. Not satisfied with this notoriety, Phelps' clan has taken to picketing the funerals of U.S. soldiers with bullhorns and signs reading "THANK GOD FOR IEDS" [improvised explosive devices] and "THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS." Phelps' logic--to whatever extent that it can be called logic--is that soldier deaths (and the civilian casualties of 9/11) are signs of God's wrath against Americans for not persecuting lesbians and gays enough.

It is difficult to imagine an advocacy group that has less in common with Westboro than the American Civil Liberties Union, which since 1920 has worked to secure and preserve the civil rights of all Americans. The ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, in particular, works to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, to make marriage rights available to same-sex couples, and to support hate crime legislation that extends specific protection to sexual minorities.

But the ACLU is also in favor of protecting the First Amendment, which sometimes means that it must protect the rights of groups whose values run contrary to its own.

http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/257496.htm

 

[Daisy]

The ACLU is for principles rather than parties.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by Ben W:
But the ACLU is also in favor of protecting the First Amendment, which sometimes means that it must protect the rights of groups whose values run contrary to its own.

While the Phelps cult is dispicable, the ACLU is correct. Popular speech is not what is in danger of being supressed. It is unpopular, and yes, even offensive speech, that must be protected. Otherwise, who knows when OUR speech will be deemed offensive.

Along these lines, and I have posted it before, is the famous words of German pastor Martin Niemoller, who opposed Adolph Hitler. He wrote:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

 

[carpro]

The greater goal of the aclu in this instance is try to be sure that protests occur at the funeral of slain soldiers.

All part of their anti American agenda.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Carpro, I doubt that very much. I believe their goal is protecting freedom of speech. There is no evidence to support your statement that they endorse such protests.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Carpro, I doubt that very much.

Of course, you do.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

So, let's not make this about me. Let's stick to the issue. Where is your evidence?

 

[carpro]

No evidence needed.

It is my opinion that the aclu has never abandoned it's communist roots and is determined to destroy America's institutions using our own laws and constitution to do it.

Such institutions include, but are not limited to: family, marriage, religion, and the military.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Evidence is always needed to support a claim. Your saying none is needed doesn't override your burden of proof.

Plus, would you say that in cases where the ACLU has defended the religous freedom of Christians, that fits into an anti-religion agenda? For example, the street preacher they defended last year whose rights to free speech was being trampled upon.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Carpro, for example, I can say you have an agenda to make it legal to abuse women and own slaves. To substantiate that claim, I would need to provide evidence to support that. I cannot merely say, "no evidence needed". Of course, evidence is needed, or my statement has no support and should be discounted.

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Evidence is always needed to support a claim. Your saying none is needed doesn't override your burden of proof.

I have been under the assumption that you would know the difference between a "claim" and an "opinion".

Apparently, I was mistaken.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

You stated it as a fact. You are indeed entitled to your opinion, however unsupported it may be. It should be made clear that is your opinion only. Just like you don't see the Op-Ed pieces on the front page presented as news. (Yeah I know, all news is biased to a degree, but you get the idea).

So yes, no evidence needed for your opinion. Glad to see you admit you have nothing to back it up with.

 

[Kilad]

Originally posted by Daisy:
The ACLU is for principles rather than parties.

Now that is the funniest thing that I have heard in a long time. Thanks for the laugh daisy

 

[Daisy]

You're welcome, Kilad.

Now, would you care to dispute that with facts or are you like carpro, preferring evidenceless opinion?

 

[carpro]

We've had discussions about the aclu before, Daisy.

My "facts" do not faze you and your "facts" do not faze me, so why bother?

You will not change my mind and I will not change yours. We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. But I will continue to state my opinion about the aclu as will you.

Live with it. I will.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

The ACLU ONLY takes cases that support their long term goals...

Which is, IMHO, to re-create America as a godless socialist regime with them in charge...

If you examine the case deeply enough you will see that supporting the harassment of War Heroes Families supports that goal..

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Another opinion without support, but at least SMM clearly labeled it as such!

 

[carpro]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
The ACLU ONLY takes cases that support their long term goals...

Which is, IMHO, to re-create America as a godless socialist regime with them in charge...

If you examine the case deeply enough you will see that supporting the harassment of War Heroes Families supports that goal..

Agreed.

But sometimes, if there is no readily available client for an issue they wish to engage on, they will troll for one.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by carpro:
We've had discussions about the aclu before, Daisy.

Perhaps so; I don't recall.

My "facts" do not faze you...

The only "fact" that the anti-ACLUers have that's factual is that the founder was a commie. You're correct that that doesn't faze me.

...and your "facts" do not faze me, so why bother?

I wasn't bothering with you - my challenge was to Kilad.

You will not change my mind...

You know your own mind best; if you say it is impervious to facts and reason, I believe you.

... and I will not change yours.

You might if you had sound arguements and convincing evidence - something more than, "That's my opinion".

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
Carpro, I doubt that very much. I believe their goal is protecting freedom of speech. There is no evidence to support your statement that they endorse such protests.

Freedom of Speech is not in danger. They just can't do it to disrupt the grieving family. They can protest somewhere else all they want. IMO, their protesting at the gravesites is the same as inciting a riot.

Joseph Botwinick