Pull plug on ACLU
Now look at you. You're fat and lethargic, like Elvis in 1976. You haven't had an attack on America in three years. You've slipped so far, you're being compared to an organization that DEFENDS THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF AMERICANS. Shame on you, Al-Qaida. Shame on you. If the best you can muster is on par with defending the rights of a teenager in Wisconsin to wear her religious symbol like the rest of the students, you've gone off the map.
Of course, this is a victory for America. If the ACLU is as much a threat to our freedom and liberty as Al-Qaida, then we certainly have won the war on terror!
Now, it's time to pillory and burn some Godless man-sex promoters. LET'S ROLL.
-pb
And now that we know how easily government capitulates to the threat of lawsuits, it's time for someone to start suing over taxpayer support of this [the ACLU] degenerate group of God-hating perverts.Goodbye to the ACLU
Joseph Farrah, WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary
It is time to consider [the ACLU] organization as complete a threat to the future of the United States as al-Qaida. While al-Qaida uses physical force to destroy American buildings, the ACLU uses legal force to tear down American institutions. Whether against the Boy Scouts, Christmas, life, marriage, or the Pledge of Allegiance, the ACLU is at war on ordered liberty.Al-Qaida, you certainly have lost your punch. Three years ago, you were merrily flying planes into buildings and sending fanatical jihadis into the arms of 70-some odd virigins for all eternity. You were blowing up infidel outposts hilly-nilly, and supporting the Intifata, even if you don't really like Palestinians. You were fighting against Zion and The Great Satan, car bomb by car bomb.
-Hans Zeiger, WorldNetDaily Exclusive Commentary (in concurrence with the above)
Now look at you. You're fat and lethargic, like Elvis in 1976. You haven't had an attack on America in three years. You've slipped so far, you're being compared to an organization that DEFENDS THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF AMERICANS. Shame on you, Al-Qaida. Shame on you. If the best you can muster is on par with defending the rights of a teenager in Wisconsin to wear her religious symbol like the rest of the students, you've gone off the map.
Of course, this is a victory for America. If the ACLU is as much a threat to our freedom and liberty as Al-Qaida, then we certainly have won the war on terror!
Now, it's time to pillory and burn some Godless man-sex promoters. LET'S ROLL.
-pb
- Music:Switchblade Symphony - Soldiers
Profile
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
pbagosy- Paul Bagosy
- paul.bagosy.com
Comments
-js?!
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.h
I'm not religious, but I strongly believe that the foundations of the major religions provide for moral precepts that everyone can follow. It's basic human rights. The problem with conservative religious groups is that they are just that, conservative. They hold to a much more rigid view of the world, and do what they can to push that view on others. They aren't the only problem in America, though. The premise of the ACLU is to take away from the individual to provide for the majority. In most examples, individual human rights are stripped away to provide a comfort zone for those around them, and in situations where this isn't the case (i.e. the death penalty), their principles are based on preserving the individual at the expense of everyone else. I don't buy that, it's the very antithesis of what this country is founded on. Our country was founded on individual human rights with swift, strong retribution for the guilty. It facilitated a monstrous growth on the part of our country, leading us to the top of the global ladder, but for some reason that escapes me, we've become mired between the two groups that represent extremist viewpoints.
I think you've got it backwards there. The premise of the ACLU is to take away from the majority to provide for the individual. The majority can in no way be trusted with the liberty of the minoirty.
-js?!
It's just like any other job. You're an ambassador for your employer when you're on the job. The government isn't allowed to favor a religion, and as long as its employees are on the clock, neither are they.
If I go to the DMV and someone wants to leave a Menorah in their office, I'm cool with that. How does that affect me?
Simple. Say that I, a Wiccan, were to walk into an Alabama courtroom, and the judge is wearing robes that have the 10 Commandments emblazoned on them. How do you think that would affect me?
I don't see much difference between having a Menorah on the desk at the DMV and 10 Commandments on a judge's robe, because they have one thing in common: They simply shouldn't be there.
By the way, who are you and how did you come across my journal?
-js?!
By way of disclaimer, though, I must add that that ACLU tends to fight the wrong things. I personally hate their stance on the Los Angeles County Seal.
The line that I draw is between the type of business and decoration. Courtrooms are no-nonsense zones. The rooms SHOULD be stale. Judges SHOULD be wearing straight black garb. The people that are conducting their business in the courtroom should have no distractions. The foyer is a different matter. I just don't see a difference between a statue of David at the entryway and pictures of the New York skyline along the hallway.
Not everything that goes on in governmental locations represents the government. If the stenographer takes a dump in the men's room, is he acting on behalf of the government?
I completely disagree with you about employees not being allowed to favor a religion while on the clock. You can't just drop your beliefs with the punch of a timecard. A person can talk all they want, but in the end, their religion makes up who they are and the decisions they make day to day. Ultimately, if a job requires you to be impartial, and you can't make impartial decisions within the parameters the job allows, then you shouldn't have that job.
I guess I see it as discrimination against people that work for the government. Other occupations allow people to flavor their workspace, yet government employees shouldn't be allowed? Don't allow personal flavor where it could be distracting to the work at hand.
Preach tolerance, not silence.
Yes, but companies can require a dress code. I couldn't come into work wearing shorts and a t-shirt, because my company would view that as unprofessional. When I worked in retail I couldn't have any more than one ear piercing, and that was completely legal.
You can't just drop your beliefs with the punch of a timecard.
No one's asking anyone to drop their beliefs. You can believe anything you want. You don't, however, have the right to post them in an obtrusive outward display.
The foyer [of a courtroom] is a different matter.
No, it's not, because I have to walk past it into the courtroom. It's like carving "Abandon all hope ye who enter" above the door. It's like having the 10 commandments posted outside. It's the implicit ideal that I'm going to be judged according to those beliefs, as opposed to the actual law. Even if that's not true, the implication is there. It's a distraction, and it's grounds for appeal.
-js?!
Who exactly is suffering by not being able to post religious parephenalia on state land?
Because I can tell you who's suffering by allowing it.
entering into a courtroom makes a person nervous, then perhaps they'll think twice about perpetrating the crime.
Not everyone in a courtroom is a criminal. Remember, we're innocent until proven guilty (and there are lawyers present, too).
Would you like to be be in the position of appealing a murder conviction if you were innocent? They still keep you locked up while you're appealing.
-js?!
You're absolutely right. Government buildings should be aesthetically sterile. However, personal office spaces are just that and should be the domain and care of the owner, religious paraphrenalia and all.
Now, if we're talking about someone who works in an office for the Department of the Interior and never ever sees the public, no problem, as long as you're not directly offending your co-workers. But when your office is a public service, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I worked in retail long enough to know not to piss off the customer.
-js?!
I believe in supreme personal freedom and responsibility, insofar as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's freedom. I also believe in the right to privacy. Instead of manipulating the government into removing the right of an individual to express himself (in a non-obtrusive manner), shouldn't we be working on spreading tolerance? I realize that in public places, individuals entering therein have these images and symbols brought to their attention. Why should they be offended by them? This country is a melting pot. Our identity is mixed heritages. By stripping away the individual's identity, especially in a public place, you leave a stale, heartless entity.
As an addendum to the previous statement, I also believe that denying others their rights means you forfeit your own. That especially includes the right to life.
I'm not sure if I know you, but I know people that post on your journal and found my way over here.
I just like having my ideas challenged and you sounded knowledgeable. If my posting here is bothersome to you, just let me know and I'll go elsewhere.
-js?!
When you enter into the workplace, you no longer enjoy all the rights of the individual. You have become a part of the company's image, like it or not. If that company happens to be the US Government, then no, you don't have the right to decorate your workspace with religious parephenalia, because as a government employee, you project that image as that of the government.
Our identity is mixed heritages
Exactly why we need to keep religious symbology out of state-owned places. If you want to buy a plot of land and put up a gaint cross, that's your perogative as a private citizen, and as long as it's not violating any zoning laws and isn't a health hazard of any sort, I would die for your right to have it. But I'd also go down trying to stop the government from doing the same thing.
I also believe that denying others their rights means you forfeit your own. That especially includes the right to life
I agree, which is why I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty. But you're talking about two different things here. You're talking about letting an employee violate a legitimate company policy. I have no problem with Muslim charities banning ham sandwiches. I have no problem with PETA banning down-lined jackets. Likewise, government employees shouldn't be obviously touting their religion. If I were a postal worker, I certainly wouldn't decorate for every High Holiday.
-js!?
I'm not sure I follow your logic. How can you be anti-death penalty and still agree with me that denying others their rights means forfeiture of your own, including the right to life?
Pro-choice and pro-life is a sticky wicket anyways. It's all a matter of when the "child" is a "child". The courtrooms will decide what's legal there, but a person's beliefs will end up shaping their opinion.
I guess where we disagree is that I don't see the employees of the government as soulless avatars, no more than any other company employee. Granted the job requires certain criteria be met, i.e. dress codes (which I extend to visually sanitized courtrooms), but I feel any adjacent areas, hallways, bathrooms, foyer, are fair game. I can't speak for all business, but I know my own business encourages decorations and such.
Wait, what? I'm anti-death penalty, which means that I agree that denying others the right to life might mean forfeiting my own right to life.
Granted the job requires certain criteria be met, i.e. dress codes (which I extend to visually sanitized courtrooms), but I feel any adjacent areas, hallways, bathrooms, foyer, are fair game.
I think that any company has the right to decide what goes on in their property. It's public land, which means that it's owned by the people as a whole. I'm pretty adverse to having Christian symbols put on my property, as I'm sure Christians would be pretty pissed if there were pagan symbols all about as well.
-js?!
Alright, I see the discrepancy. You view the issue as a positive feedback loop (downward spiral), whereas I view it as a negative feedback loop (action-reaction). Now, if someone commits murder, they've forfeited their right to life, but if everyone thought as you do, no one would act on it. If a second party hits the switch, as it were, that's not murder, that's justice. Murder, by definition, is the crime of unlawfully killing a person, esp. with malice aforethought.
When I take a look at the 250+ names of people who had their death sentence overturned on new evidence, I have to call it cruel and unusual, not justice. If there were a foolproof method of determining guilt and the potential for rehabilitation, then I'd say sure, off those who are beyond hope. But we don't have that, and we're sending innocent people to their deaths. That's not justice.
-js!?
Laws change, so it's hard to say exactly how airtight a case has to be in order to determine the death penalty, nowadays. It would be naive to think that we haven't sent innocent people to their deaths in the past century, but the parameters that allow the death penalty are pretty tight. People are on death row for decades, and these people that get the penalty overturned aren't necessarily innocent, it just gives them another drawn-out court process to re-evaluate old facts with whatever else surfaces.
I definitely need to do some research on this to be sure, but think about it. How much shitty celestial alignment does there have to be to put you in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong evidence?
The death penalty is reserved for the most extreme cases. How many people have been released from the courts only to strike again? Honestly, if anything, our judicial system is too lenient. Is it worth sacrificing 1, 10, 100 innocents for the greater good? What if that number is ostensibly zero?
Ask Nick Yarris, who spent 22 years on death row for a crime he didn't commit. Luckily, he was exonerated (and even then, they tried to keep him in prison). Ask all the people who may have been strapped up to a needle due to the complete incompetence of the entire Houston Crime Lab. There are literally hundreds of cases there that are horribly tainted.
The death penalty isn't justice, because it isn't fair, and I've got stats to prove it:
Since 1974
14% of victims of murderer who were sentenced to death were black, as opposed to 81% who were white. If you kill a black person, you're less likely to get the death penalty.
Of people given the death penalty for interracial murders:
5% were white murderers with black victims. The other 95% were black murderers with white victims. If you're black and you kill a white person, you're 95% more likely to be sentenced to death than if it were the other way around.
95% of death row inmates couldn't afford their own legal representation. If you're poor, you're 95% more likely to get the death penalty.
So, no, it's not justice.
Is it worth sacrificing 1, 10, 100 innocents for the greater good?
No. Considering it costs more to execute a prisoner, is is worth sacrificing even one innocent person? No, no and no.
-js?!
So, the death penalty:
We need to fix it so that the people who receive it are a slam dunk. Damning evidence. Maybe have a specific council that oversees all capital punishment crimes. Hell, we have the Supreme Court, we could make another court for this. If a jury is willing to see the defendant suffer capital punishment, the case can then be taken to this council that then determines if enough parameters are met (no circumstantial evidence, etc.) to merit execution.
I just don't know enough about law to have a solid opinion on the judicial system as a whole though. I mean, if innocent until proven guilty is the judicial credo, why are so many innocent people incarcerated? Is there a set point where there's enough circumstantial evidence to convict?
Numbers like these are hard to bank on without knowing the socio-economic variables associated with the perpetrators (and victims). Statistically, since 1968 the split between white and black executions have been 50% give or take 10%, with whites taking the larger cut. I don't see much bias without knowing locations and such.
For interracial murders, again, it's hard to say what's what without knowing the outlying factors. 95%/5% is a large stretch, and just looking at those numbers seems to show bias, but what are the extraneous factors? Perhaps the most violent crimes occur most frequently between black criminals and white victims. That doesn't seem so hard to believe, considering the rift between the races, especially in locales of economic hardship.
And 95% poor defendants on death row doesn't equate to 95% more likely to recieve it. If 95% of poor people are more apt to receive capital punishment, there would be a hell of a lot more people executed. Don't get me wrong, that number is still abysmally high, but you take people like OJ that can afford to buy their way out of crime, and that's what you have left. It seems that rich people can afford to buy reasonable doubt, whereas poor people typically can't. Is that justice? Certainly not, but that's potentially because rich folk escape the system. That doesn't necessarily mean truly guilty poor criminals don't deserve the final treatment. (I'm just talking semantics here, you already sold me on the number of actual innocent death row inmates).
You've also got to consider that it costs more money to execute someone than it does to incarcerate them for life. At what point to you consider things to be 'damning'?
Is there a set point where there's enough circumstantial evidence to convict?
Have you ever seen The Green Mile? No jury in the world would have had a problem convicting Coffey of the murder of those two little girls. His words at the scene, their blood on him, etc., but the fact was he was innocent. Even a confession isn't always reliable, because there are a number of ways to extract a confession. You've also got to look at the mental health of the defendant. Unless we have a 100% foolproof method of determining guilt or innocence, and then detemining intent and the possibility for rehabilitation, I don't think it's a good idea. It's better ethically and financially to err on the side of caution.
Our penal system is inherently flawed in that it places almost no emphasis on rehabilitation. No matter which way you cut it, though, the death penalty isn't a deterrent. Murder rates in states that have it are unchanged since 1976, and they haven't gone up in states that don't have it. It's simply not a deterrent. The death penalty simply has no impact on crime. Our justice system should focus more on rehabilitation than punishment.
-js?!
This is where I strongly disagree with the ACLU. Public property doesn't mean no-one can use it, it means everyone can use it. If Xtians want to put up manger scenes on the town square, during Xmas time, fine. That also means that Wiccans can plant seeds there during Imbolc. We need to learn how to share this "public" property.
Is it company policy? Or do you just feel it should be company policy at the risk of offending the intolerant?
Is it company policy? Or do you just feel it should be company policy at the risk of offending the intolerant?
I'd say that Seperation of Church and State is a policy that should be upheld.
It's not discrimination to tell someone that they can't hang Christmas decorations at work. It would be discrimination to tell them that they couldn't work there if they were Christian. Two different things.
-js?!
Completely agree with this, with the exception of personal office space.
I dunno, but if we want universal tolerance, shouldn't we start at the top?
But, they are. If you work for the DMV, that's a government office. If you work for the CIA, that is too, just like National Park Rangers and Postal workers.
Universal tolerance doesn't mean allowing everyone to do their own thing. We're talking about a workplace situation here. If you want to be a street-corner preacher, go for it. Just don't do it when you're sorting my mail.
-js?!