Kindergarten and the Kafkaesque

[_Darth J]

DarthJ, calling every argument simply a fallacy without any actual rebutal is intellectually lazy.

Intellectual laziness is consistently relying on fallacious reasoning, which you are. Every single assertion you made commits the fallacy I attributed to it.

For example, the fact that the ACLU "primarily" supports liberal causes is not some "fallacy" it's simple fact and reality.

No, that is your unsupported assertion. It is also begging the question of what a "liberal cause" is.

Yes, I'm well aware of Madison, the primary driver/creator of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights, the first two you liberals so hate, but at least the Federalist Papers.

I'm not a liberal. You keep throwing around this word "liberal," and as far as the content of your posts are concerned, "liberal" seems to mean nothing more than anyone who disagrees to any extent with your unsupported assertions, fatuous reasoning, and misstatements of fact.

It's also strange that you distinguish between the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as if the latter is not subsumed by the former.

The Federalist Papers are practically the Conservative Bible,

I have yet to see that demonstrated in practice.

in response to the anti-federalists a.k.a. liberals in our day.

As with essentially all of your babbling, you are being incoherent here. You are asserting that liberals want a huge, powerful federal government, and yet they are effectively anti-Federalists.

So, what's your point about James Madison???

I'm guessing that you think he was some big proponent against church and state mixing?

Yes. I base that thinking on the things he actually said, and the existence of things like the Establishment Clause. I find that to be a better source of determining his philosophy about the relationship between church and state than argument by assertion and reference to shameless, demonstrable lies advocated by David Barton.

Well, that would be UTTERLY FALSE..... what you are not understanding is that there is a difference between his and ALL other founders views of having religion "control" government, and completely BANNING it from being a part of Government and the Public Square as ANY PERSON who has views CAN ALSO be a part of government and the Public Square.

That is real freedom..... Banning peoples beliefs from the public square is completely anathema to Madison and ALL the founders.

Good to know, ldsfaqs. Perhaps you would like to name a case the ACLU has litigated to ban private citizens from expressing religious viewpoints in the public square.

Also, ldsfaqs, it may surprise you to know that when an elected official acts within the scope of his or her office to either promote or infringe upon religious beliefs, he or she is not acting as a private citizen.

Please read these two articles....

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesar ... asp?id=105

In addition to the "Liars for Jesus" link that EAllusion provided, here is a fun example of David Barton fabricating quotes he attributes to James Madison:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9W4I_NL7rI

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/james-madison-and-religious-liberty'

Let me help you out here, ldsfaqs: James Madison's personal religious faith, or lack thereof, is not relevant to the relationship between church and state. The first is personal conviction, the second is the limit of governmental authority over personal conviction. There is nothing in this Heritage Foundation article that gainsays the First Amendment's religion clauses separating religion from government, not from over two hundred years of Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence establishing that government in the United States is to be neutral toward religion, neither favoring it nor disfavoring it.

Preventing state religion was the views of the founders and is the view of all of us.
But there isn't a single founder who wouldn't be appalled at the complete "removal" of religion from the Public Square, because that act goes entirely against the principles of freedom.

Thankfully, religion has not been completely removed from the public square, and the ACLU advocates for precisely the opposite.

Anway, what was your point?

You suggested that the idea of "separation" between church and state is a myth that is not based on the Constitution. Madison's exact words were that the Constitution provides for a separation between church and state.

And again, while it's true the ACLU does promote "some" conservative style ideals, it more so goes against them. Just look over their issues Platform. A good portion of them are clear liberal ideology. Just because some conservatives are in the institution doesn't make it NOT a "left leaning" institution and ideologically based.

In the thread where you ridiculously misconstrue the 6th Circuit's ruling about political asylum for that German family, you said that I should stop looking at the Republican Party platform to determine what the Republican Party stands for. If you would please decide whether platform statements do or do not speak for an organization, that would be great.

Also, since you do not appear to have the slightest idea how the U.S. legal system works, I will just tell you that when a party prevails in a case on appeal, the appellate ruling almost always establishes binding precedent for the jurisdiction over which the appellate court presides. What that means is when the ACLU represents a party on appeal and prevails, the ACLU is helping establish case law. It makes no sense for the ACLU to be working to establish law contrary to whatever its "agenda" supposedly is.

Further, the fact that many of it's actions directly go against it's own charter and platforms, and instead support the liberal agenda is clear. I know liberals can be for civil rights, but more often than not they are for liberal civil rights, not conservative civil rights. by the way, your "religion" example is a straw-man. Religion is not simply a domain of conservatives. So, the fact that the ACLU does a lot of religious cases doesn't somehow make it not liberal.

Is it really so hard to comprehend?

Is it hard to comprehend that there is such a thing as liberal civil rights or conservative civil rights? Yeah, that's really hard to comprehend. It's hard to comprehend because it there is no basis in the Constitution to cherry pick which civil rights you want people in society to have. Your ridiculous labeling everything as either with your poorly-defined terms of "conservative" or "liberal" also conflates individual value judgments with political judgments over what the scope of government should be and what limits the government has over individual freedom. What you are nakedly advocating is your belief that the government should impose your religious value judgments on society, so that individuals will not have the right to act in ways that you feel are displeasing to the Mormon god.

Ironic that this was Lucifer's plan, isn't it?

[_Droopy]

Anyway, Droopy, feel free at your convenience to explain why the ACLU regularly challenges in court things like school zero-tolerance policies and campus speech codes, what with the ACLU being a leftist communist socialist leftist liberal communist organization and all.

Its too far above your head and beyond your capacity to process either intellectually or morally, Darth.

You're a rubber chew toy to me, nothing more.

[_EAllusion]

By "conservative civil right" one gets the sense that ldsfaqs is referring to not interfering with his personal freedom to oppress you.

Robert Bork, in the process of demonstrating why we dodged a huge bullet when he didn't make it to the Supreme Court, wrote, "“Every clash between a minority claiming freedom and a majority claiming power to regulate involves a choice between the gratification of the two groups…why is sexual gratification more worthy than moral gratification? No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral. Unless we can distinguish forms of gratification, the only course for a principled court is to let the majority have its way in both cases. It is clear that the court cannot make the necessary distinction. There is no principled way to decide that one man’s gratifications are more deserving of respect than another’s or that one form of gratification is more worthy than another.”

I bet that ldsfaqs, to the extent that he can put together a coherent thought, feels persecuted when the government doesn't let him persecute others. After all, that's taking away his freedom, isn't it? And so we have conservative and liberal civil rights.

[_Droopy]

I would like to learn more about the factual basis for the assertion that the ACLU is a liberal ideological group. Thanks in advance for giving me some links.

While you keep baiting the hook and expecting intelligent adults to fall into your transparently facile rhetorical traps (which is all you really ever traffic in, Darth - rhetoric), here's what you requested:


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/prin ... grpid=6145

http://books.google.com/books?id=kMnGnF ... st&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=A2dGV2 ... &q&f=false

[_ldsfaqs]

You people just LOVE to create straw-men that you then attack....

There is NOTHING in my words which say's or implies that I/we want to "impose" something on you people.

Simply phenomenal the "fantasy's" in the liberal mind that they translate into reality of others.

[_Droopy]

Heh. That's pretty insane even for Droopy. But it does give space to mention that The Iron Giant is a brilliant film.

Its nothing of the kind. Its pure, manipulative propaganda aimed at beings too intellectually unformed and unsophisticated to critically analyze its message.

The gun motif is about people having the freedom to choose who they are.

"Guns...hurt...people." Over and over and over again, in that big, sappy, dumb, pleading voice.

Oh please, Delusion, you're killing me.

[_Droopy]

The ACLU is a staunch supporter of the free exercise clause.

I love the big, bold, spectacular, larger than life lies. I like the ten megaton-sized intelligence insulting, straight-faced whoppers that leave you wondering if the deceiver actually believes what he's saying, or is just playing intellectual poker for the sake of the game.

[_Droopy]

Robert Bork, in the process of demonstrating why we dodged a huge bullet when he didn't make it to the Supreme Court

This statement paints you in primary colors as precisely the avowed enemy of freedom and liberty (save for your own and those who agree with you ideologically) that you have always presented yourself as and to which I have been responding for many years now. You have also painted yourself as a relentless anti-Christian/religious bigot for whom the free exercise clause is a matter of the good graces of the privileged secular humanist Ruling Class

“Every clash between a minority claiming freedom and a majority claiming power to regulate involves a choice between the gratification of the two groups…why is sexual gratification more worthy than moral gratification? No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral. Unless we can distinguish forms of gratification, the only course for a principled court is to let the majority have its way in both cases. It is clear that the court cannot make the necessary distinction. There is no principled way to decide that one man’s gratifications are more deserving of respect than another’s or that one form of gratification is more worthy than another.”

Yes, the courts are not competent to decide such issues. Centuries of human experience, analysis, observation, and historical knowledge are a better bet than a tiny cabal of Platonic guardians. Of course, the constitution protects the minority from the majority; it is a republican form of government, not a democracy, and as the supreme law of the land under the rule of law (not of humans or their desires/predilections/gratifications) majority's ability to determine the way things shall be is distinctly limited.

Bork was widely considered to be among the most prominent legal eminences of the 20th century, and to say we "dodged a bullet" by failing to place a brilliant legal mind and committed classical liberal on the bench is simply to say that you feel threatened by the classic liberal tradition and much of what it contains and implies, not the least of which is its Judeo-Christian superstructure.

We in the Church understand these feelings and sentiments. The light, truth, and correct knowledge destroy your craft, to put it in Book of Mormon terminology.

For the secular humanist mind, one faces the gospel or any salient aspects or expressions of it as the proverbial lion faces his thorns.

[_Droopy]

Ten bucks says Droopy hasn't seen The Iron Giant, but is repeating what a George Will-esque columnist said.

Its a good thing you're not a betting man, Darth. Oh, there is the lawsuit lottery, but that's mostly weighted in your favor.

I mention George Will because he voiced similar ludicrous criticisms of E.T.

Compared to George Will, you have the intellectual capabilities of a soggy potato chip. Not only did I see it, I bought it, and it ended on the burning pile. That's where most Hollywood product ends when leftist moral prigs use an otherwise good story to wag their pious, self-righteous fingers in my face (between tokes).

[_EAllusion]

This statement paints you in primary colors as precisely the avowed enemy of freedom and liberty (save for your own and those who agree with you ideologically)

Robert Bork believed that speech that was not explicitly political was not protected by the first amendment and advocated for a extensive range of censorship of speech he considered immoral. He felt those kung-fu movies you like to watch should be illegal for their depiction of violent content. Freedom.

Bork was widely considered to be among the most prominent legal eminences of the 20th century,

Lol. By who? Widely considered by a majority vote of your stuffed animal collection?

and to say we "dodged a bullet" by failing to place a brilliant legal mind and committed classical liberal on the bench is simply to say that you feel threatened by the classic liberal tradition and much of what it contains and implies,

Robert Bork could not be more antithetical to the classic liberal tradition if he was a monarchist.