Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Stop the ACLU

May 25, 2006
Constitution, Courts, Laws, Legal
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Stop the ACLU

Comments
This is from the link mentioned above:
"The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal administration."
*gasps* So much for freedom of speach.
Nat Hentoff, a writer and former A.C.L.U. board member, was incredulous. “You sure that didn’t come out of Dick Cheney’s office?” he asked. “For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can’t think of anything more contrary to the reason the A.C.L.U. exists,” Mr. Hentoff added. http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/aclu_may_block_criticism_by_its_board/
Mats
May 26, 2006
May
05
May
26
26
2006
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
I personaly see no problem in voicing one's view about the ACLU. We must not forget that the ACLU is using a particular interpretation of the COnstitution to hinder science (ID), and work against belief systems that are in agreement with the overwhelming majority of Americans. I don't think that the Founding Fathers wanted the Constitution to eliminate public display of Faith. Starting from the assumption that their creation myth is true (Darwinism), the ACLU uses its immense power to prevent people from even hearing other theories. If this is a "civil liberties" organization, it should be in agreement with what the majority of the "civilians" want. That is not the case. The ACLU is only determined to promote left winged fundamentalism on the disguise of "freedom defender". It's ok to defend one's political views (right or left), but I think it's wrong to hide your true motives, and to use the Constitution to promote liberalism/materialism/naturalism.Mats
May 26, 2006
May
05
May
26
26
2006
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
God's iPod The majority? We come here? Who's "we" and who elected you to represent them? There are tens of thousands of unique visitors to this blog every month. The few people that decided it was too much trouble to skip a post where the title indicates it's of no interest to them is hardly a majority. I will reiterate - if you don't like the subject DON'T READ IT.DaveScot
May 26, 2006
May
05
May
26
26
2006
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT
That's great Dave, but we don't come here for the comments. We come for the original posts and make comment on them. I agree with the majority, please keep the forum focused as much as possible on ID issues. There's a million other forums where we can, and do, discuss the evils of the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union.Gods iPod
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT

The ACLU and activist judges who side with them are the #1 obstruction to giving ID a fair hearing to everyone. Teaching the NAS and NCSE version of evolution to the exclusion of all else in public school is not just A problem it's THE problem. If you don't care for my posting the bad things the ACLU does so more people can see how they're a destructive influence then skip over it. I'm tolerant of a lot of comments I don't agree with (YEC) so I expect the courtesy returned.

DaveScot
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
More ID science please - less politics. I mean that is what should matter. I am not interested in right-wing conservative US turmoils and I am sure other international people who stop by here feel the same way.tb
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
Lighten up people =P. There were no comments, it was just a link.Mung
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
I meant to suggest in #9 that you could replace the text of your post with the content of the above links.russ
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
DaveScott: May I suggest a compromise. Here are some links that are free of "right-wing" commentary and should satisfy your detractors on this thread: What Experts Say about ID: http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21768res20051123.html Frequently asked questions about ID: http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16371res20050916.htmlruss
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
While I agree with poster #5 that much opposition to ID is cultural, political and even religious, it is important for ID proponents to consistently bring the focus back to the basic point that empirical evidence, probability, and information theory support ID without recourse to any other agenda. But on the other hand, considering the role of the ACLU in the Dover case and their successful bid to paint ID as a form of scripture-based religion, it does make some sense to keep abreast of this whole issue as it unfolds in our society.avocationist
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT

I was curious and so I went back and looked at the last several of DaveScot's posts. Among these, 3 have been either explicit or implicit calls to "Stop the ACLU." We've learned about "Kevin Padian hating fundamentalists," and that Judge Jones apparently belongs in the same category with a carefully cherrypicked list of former Time Men of the Year which includes Hitler, Stalin, Krushchev, and Khomeini. And, we’ve learned that its important that members of the Marine Corps be allowed to pray.

The point is not whether I agree or disagree with any of this. The point is that any student in a freshman composition class can identify all of this as wildly off topic.

Dr Dembski: You’re not doing yourself or the cause of ID any favors by continuing to grant DaveScot a forum to articulate his parochial, right-wing political agenda on a site which has your name and likeness in the banner, and which perports to be about ID.

Thanks,

Well Steve, since you reviewed my articles I thought it fair I review your comments and upon so doing I decided you're not fitting in very well. I think it's time for you to move along. -ds SteveB
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
It seems there are two aspects to ID -- the first is science in that the empiracle, objective evidence is on the side of a designer (regardless of whom or what the designer is.) The second is that the opposition to ID is not science but political/cultural/religious. This is where the ACLU is relevant. If the courts allowed questions of creation to be treated in public schools as they had from before the Constitution's ratification through 1963, this debate might not be as acrimonious or unproductive.tribune7
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
I'm voting with the descenters. Lately I have not been able to keep up with all of the new topics on Uncommon Descent. Many of these topics are fringe when it comes to ID. Others are ID/politics rather than ID/science. Its the ID/science that interests me -- mostly. This post, and the previous one, however, don't even have to do with ID/politics. Please keep this board about ID.bFast
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Agreed. This blog's value is in its focus and in what should be its example of excellence on its topic.TomG
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
jaredl is completely correct. DaveScot, it might be a good idea to review the information which you yourself posted at https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/comment-policy/moderation/, which says, in part: "This blog is for me (Dembski) mainly to get out news items ABOUT THE ID MOVEMENT and my work in particular." (emphasis mine) For those of us who may want the scoop on the latest hot-button right-wing political issue, there are plently of places on the web to get it. The rest of us are interested in ID. Please make an effort to stay on topic.SteveB
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
The ACLU showed at Dover that if you can brand speech or even ideas as "religious" then you can ban such expressions as violations of the establishment clause. Seems relevant to this blog.russ
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Please, DaveScot, do not associate ID with right-wing politics. ID is a matter whose importance transcends politics, and whose association with politics of either stripe only clouds the issues and makes for an easy guilt-by-association tactic by detractors.jaredl
May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply