ACLU Backs an LDS Student in W.VA

[All-American]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

So your answer is yes. Okay.

My answer is I have no idea what the ACLU would do on behalf of Christianity were Christians to find themselves in the minority. I do know that when a Mormon found himself in the minority in West Virginia, the ACLU took up his cause.

[DirtyHippieUTE]

The problem with the ACLU is this...

They operate under the assumption that everyone can simultaneously exercise their civil rights. It's a load of crap.

A right is not permission to do something, it is a restriction on the rights of others to prevent you from doing it. In other words, the only way to defend the rights of one is to infringe upon the rights of another.

At some point there is going to be a conflict between rights. At some point the ACLU will find itself incapable of defending the rights of both sides. Then they will have to take a side and they lose the ability to claim neutrality.

Whenever this happens, the ACLU is criticized by the other side. They tend to go liberal on most issues... That's why the right doesn't like them.

The only way to avoid this would be to sit out some of the most heated battles. I don't think the sort of people who work for the ACLU are the kind who can sit on their hands when something about which they are passionate comes up.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

The problem with the ACLU is this...

They operate under the assumption that everyone can simultaneously exercise their civil rights. It's a load of crap.

A right is not permission to do something, it is a restriction on the rights of others to prevent you from doing it. In other words, the only way to defend the rights of one is to infringe upon the rights of another.

At some point there is going to be a conflict between rights. At some point the ACLU will find itself incapable of defending the rights of both sides. Then they will have to take a side and they lose the ability to claim neutrality.

Whenever this happens, the ACLU is criticized by the other side. They tend to go liberal on most issues... That's why the right doesn't like them.

The only way to avoid this would be to sit out some of the most heated battles. I don't think the sort of people who work for the ACLU are the kind who can sit on their hands when something about which they are passionate comes up.

I disagree with your premise that someone exercising their individual rights has to be bad for someone else's rights. Sometimes there are competing rights, but I don't think it happens all that often or maybe we're not agreeing on the definition of rights. For example, if you were a middle class homeowner fighting your city because the city wants to take your property and give it to a developer to build a mall, the ACLU would likely be interested in speaking up for you. Only one individual's rights are in jeopardy in that case because the majority being able to shop at Niemann Marcus is not a right. The developer also doesn't have a right to have your property just because he has money or influence on city government. On the other hand, the government or someone else not being able to seize your individual property for frivolous reasons IS a Constitutional right.

[RockyBalboa]

Just because an organization who defends NAMBLA, and Purveyors of Porn might once in a blue moon defend a mormon doesn't mean they still aren't a sack of shit organization.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Just because an organization who defends NAMBLA, and Purveyors of Porn might once in a blue moon defend a mormon doesn't mean they still aren't a sack of shit organization.

Those damn leftists.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localne..._limbaugh.html

[DirtyHippieUTE]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I disagree with your premise that someone exercising their individual rights has to be bad for someone else's rights. Sometimes there are competing rights, but I don't think it happens all that often or maybe we're not agreeing on the definition of rights. For example, if you were a middle class homeowner fighting your city because the city wants to take your property and give it to a developer to build a mall, the ACLU would likely be interested in speaking up for you. Only one individual's rights are in jeopardy in that case because the majority being able to shop at Niemann Marcus is not a right. The developer also doesn't have a right to have your property just because he has money or influence on city government. On the other hand, the government or someone else not being able to seize your individual property for frivolous reasons IS a Constitutional right.

I reject your reality and substitute it for one of my own...

No... Seriously...

Think about it on a basic level. The only guaranteed "right" we all have is agency. We can act or be acted upon. The only way anyone can have a "right" other than that is by society deciding that someone else can not act in a way that interferes with that right.

Your hypothetical property owner... Why does he have the "right" to that land? Why is his claim to that land superior to anyone else's? Why doesn't everyone have the right to use and occupy that property?

It is because we as a society have agreed to collectively give up any right we may have to that land. We agree not to act in a way that interferes with his use of the land and allow him to control it and exclude whomever he choses. Short of that, what is to stop anyone else from coming on to the land and doing whatever they want?

So you always have to pick sides... Some battles have already been won, the recognition of some rights so deep in our consciousness that we never even question which side to take. In those cases, there is no need for somebody like the ACLU. However, there are some cases where the line is not yet drawn.

The missionary claims to have a right to the scholarship... Why?
Why doesn't the school have the right to give the scholarship to someone else? It's their money... It's their school... It's because we (society) have decided that the school can't do whatever it wants with its money. They have to give up their right to make their own decisions and submit to our rules governing how they will make decisions.

There are going to be times when two rights collide. Half of society feels that an unborn baby has the right to be born, the other half feels that a woman has the right to chose what she can do with her body. Both people can't win.

I like to explain it this way... The only "rights" we have are those we are capable of enforcing. Take away society's approval, and the only rights I have are the ones I can defend by kicking the ass of the person who tries to infringe upon them.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by DirtyHippieUTE

I reject your reality and substitute it for one of my own...

No... Seriously...

Think about it on a basic level. The only guaranteed "right" we all have is agency. We can act or be acted upon. The only way anyone can have a "right" other than that is by society deciding that someone else can not act in a way that interferes with that right.

Your hypothetical property owner... Why does he have the "right" to that land? Why is his claim to that land superior to anyone else's? Why doesn't everyone have the right to use and occupy that property?

It is because we as a society have agreed to collectively give up any right we may have to that land. We agree not to act in a way that interferes with his use of the land and allow him to control it and exclude whomever he choses. Short of that, what is to stop anyone else from coming on to the land and doing whatever they want?

So you always have to pick sides... Some battles have already been won, the recognition of some rights so deep in our consciousness that we never even question which side to take. In those cases, there is no need for somebody like the ACLU. However, there are some cases where the line is not yet drawn.

The missionary claims to have a right to the scholarship... Why?
Why doesn't the school have the right to give the scholarship to someone else? It's their money... It's their school... It's because we (society) have decided that the school can't do whatever it wants with its money. They have to give up their right to make their own decisions and submit to our rules governing how they will make decisions.

There are going to be times when two rights collide. Half of society feels that an unborn baby has the right to be born, the other half feels that a woman has the right to chose what she can do with her body. Both people can't win.

I like to explain it this way... The only "rights" we have are those we are capable of enforcing. Take away society's approval, and the only rights I have are the ones I can defend by kicking the ass of the person who tries to infringe upon them.

wow. And people like you like to call Libertarians anarchists?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Those damn leftists.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localne..._limbaugh.html

Ahh...I get it...so because the ACLU is supporting a blowhard windbag in Limbaugh,,,this is supposed to dispell the factual reality that most of the ACLU leanings go to the extreme left and that it makes it okay they defend a group that takes pride in mounting little boys.

Typical weak effort on your part, but Par for the course for you. Yawn.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Ahh...I get it...so because the ACLU is supporting a blowhard windbag in Limbaugh,,,this is supposed to dispell the factual reality that most of the ACLU leanings go to the extreme left and that it makes it okay they defend a group that takes pride in mounting little boys.

Typical weak effort on your part, but Par for the course for you. Yawn.

Do you get to work on your own in the morning or do they send one of those small buses for you?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Do you get to work on your own in the morning or do they send one of those small buses for you?

The opposite of Magnum Trojan is "reknob" so how did you manage to ever procreate considering they don't make them inverted?