Why are people afraid of atheism?

[babygrl1234 6]

SHE'S NOT A CHRISTIANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

That was one of my top favorite reality moments of alltime. But yeah I do feel a bit bad for her children.

[plain 12]

One would have to be a bit of a nutter in the first place to even go on Trading Spouses in the first place, IMO.

[Baires 0]

It works both ways. What about the ACLU and their incessant attacks on Christmas? It seems to me that neither group is as tolerant as they want the other group to be.

The ACLU? Are you serious? Freedom of religion is one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights, which is what the ACLU is all about. Here's a list of lots of cases in which the ACLU acted on behalf of religious (most often Christian) individuals or groups:

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/religion/rf_cases_20071115.pdf

If you see yourself as being persecuted for your religious beliefs, the ACLU is your best friend. People who want to impose their religious beliefs upon others, or those who try to prevent people from worshipping whatever deity they believe in, are justified in disliking the ACLU (and the Constitution, for that matter). There are many countries out there where those people would feel much more comfortable than here, and they should seriously consider moving if state-sponsored religion is a priority for them, just like many people come here looking for exactly the opposite. As an American by deliberate choice, I really appreciate the freedoms we have here, and we have the ACLU to thank for many of them which would be long gone were they not so vigilant about them.

[BJean 16]

Whoo Hoo!!!! Finally a voice of reason!!! The ACLU is one of the most maligned and misunderstood organizations on the planet. Or at least in the U.S.A. People just don't listen, read and pay attention to what the ACLU is really all about. The ultra right wing wants us all to believe that the ACLU supports everything they do not believe in. And so they post their lies and half-truths on the internet. They complain about the ACLU ad nausem to their friends. Everyone thinks if they say something inflammatory about the ACLU it will make them more popular. Seriously. Right? You darned betcha.

Ignorance is not bliss. People should get down on their knees and thank God for the ACLU. If it weren't for their tireless efforts, our constitutional rights would be abridged at every turn.

[plain 12]

Uh, I'm not going to thank God for the ACLU until the ACLU quits representing NAMBLA....

[brandyII 9]

I have to admit that's a tough one BJean. brandyII.

But I'm sure you have a good response that would make sense because you always do!

Edited June 6, 2008 by brandyII

[gadgetlady 4]

Uh, I'm not going to thank God for the ACLU until the ACLU quits representing NAMBLA....

I love it when I get the chance to use my favorite smiley::wink2:

[BJean 16]

NAMBLA, huh? Doesn't sound good, does it?

Well the ACLU isn't about defending man/boy relationships. ACLU is about defending the Constitution. Sometimes when you disagree with the actions of a person or group you can be blind to the core issue that the ACLU is involved in.

If we didn't have a group like the ACLU, you wouldn't like what the country would become. We need a watchdog group so that our emotional biases don't cause us to make decisions that will ultimately abridge our rights.

Dig deep. Figure out the core issues of their cases. It might surprise you to learn that they do a very important job for this country.

[MacMadame 81]

Well the ACLU isn't about defending man/boy relationships. ACLU is about defending the Constitution.

They were defending free speech that particular case, in fact.

[plain 12]

Free Speech covering pedophile literature telling other pedophiles how to operate?!? I think that crosses the line. Would they protect my free speech if I published a pamplet on how to rape the mentally retarded? That was the core issue with NAMBLA, as I recall it....the publication of literature dealing with how to "seduce" young boys (ie, specific places to visit to locate boys, specific strategies to win trust, etc).

This case, specifically, was what disillusioned me to the ACLU. Think about it...They're defending child molesters!!! WTF?!? Not even molesters that admit wrongdoing and want to be reformed, but molesters that publicly plan on committing more of the vilest of crimes.

[Baires 0]

Free Speech covering pedophile literature telling other pedophiles how to operate?!? I think that crosses the line. Would they protect my free speech if I published a pamplet on how to rape the mentally retarded? That was the core issue with NAMBLA, as I recall it....the publication of literature dealing with how to "seduce" young boys (ie, specific places to visit to locate boys, specific strategies to win trust, etc).

This case, specifically, was what disillusioned me to the ACLU. Think about it...They're defending child molesters!!! WTF?!? Not even molesters that admit wrongdoing and want to be reformed, but molesters that publicly plan on committing more of the vilest of crimes.

This is what the ACLU had to say about the NAMBLA case:

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

And this is after the resolution of the case a few weeks ago:

ACLU of Massachusetts Secures Victory for Freedom of Speech and Association

Case Against NAMBLA Members Dismissed With Prejudice

April 23, 2008

BOSTON -- In a victory for freedom of speech and association, the long-running suit for damages against members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) has been dismissed with prejudice. The ACLU of Massachusetts had represented the defendants in the suit, asserting that the organization’s views were protected by the First Amendment.

The case, filed eight years ago, sought to hold the defendants responsible for the murder of Jeffrey Curley, a 10-year-old Cambridge boy who had been abducted and murdered by two men who lured him into a car. Copies of NAMBLA publications were later found in the apartment of Charles Jaynes, one of the killers, but nothing in these materials was about abduction or murder. “This was a misguided effort to spread the blame for the horrific murder of Jeffrey Curley, to shift responsibility away from those who actually committed the crime,” said John Reinstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The principle is as simple as it is central to freedom of speech. Those who do wrong should be held accountable for their crimes. Those who write about ideas, no matter what we think of those ideas, have

a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech under the American system of liberty.”

The case was sponsored by the Traditional Values Coalition and the Thomas More Center. After the suit was filed, Thomas More Center lawyers attempted to claim that Jaynes had met with NAMBLA members and had been trained to abduct and rape children. There was no evidence of any contact between Jaynes and NAMBLA other than his brief membership and his receipt of the organization’s publications. He did not attend their meetings and never met any NAMBLA members. When the court ordered the Curleys’ lawyers to come forward with an offer of proof of their claims, they instead agreed to dismiss the case. “It was a meritless case from the start,” said ACLUM Executive Director Carol Rose. “It was dragged out for years by groups who shamelessly preyed on a grieving family in order to raise money for

their own causes by attacking a group whose ideas they found offensive.”

“Our position was straightforward: the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment does not allow anyone to be sued simply for what they have written or said. That principle holds true no matter what a reader may later do,” said Rose. “This victory ensures that those who commit crimes be held accountable for those crimes and not be permitted to blame their actions on things they have read or seen.”

Edited June 6, 2008 by Baires

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

I remember this case, NAMBLA shouldn't have been on trial here in the murder case...

NAMBLA is vile. There are other organizations that are similar to NAMBLA. I've attended several FBI trainings on them and other organizations. It's disgusting that these people, who advocate sexual crimes against our precious children, get to hide behind the constitution. Wait until your child is abducted by a NAMBLA member... I bet you'd have different views about their "rights" then.

[Baires 0]

I remember this case, NAMBLA shouldn't have been on trial here in the murder case...

NAMBLA is vile. There are other organizations that are similar to NAMBLA. I've attended several FBI trainings on them and other organizations. It's disgusting that these people, who advocate sexual crimes against our precious children, get to hide behind the constitution. Wait until your child is abducted by a NAMBLA member... I bet you'd have different views about their "rights" then.

I agree, I would probably want to kill him with my bare hands. I also believe that justice in a free country should be more evenhanded and reflexive than I would be in that situation. If we allow the justice system to act in the same irrational manner we would if we were grieving victims of those accused, it all goes downhill from there, and we end up with public stonings in football fields every Sunday.

Also, in the hypothetical case you mention, the person on trial would be the one who did the deed, not those talking about it, which is the whole point the ACLU was making.

Edited June 6, 2008 by Baires

[Baires 0]

Would they protect my free speech if I published a pamplet on how to rape the mentally retarded?

If you were on trial for rape just for publishing a pamphlet, they probably would, yes.

Think about it...They're defending child molesters!!! WTF?!?

It may be a difficult concept to grasp, but they were defending people who advocate child molestation accused of a murder they didn't commit. You can find religious websites out there that advocate the murder of abortion providers, they call it "justifiable homicide". Should they be tried for murder every time a terrorist blows up an abortion clinic, or should the actual terrorists be the ones on trial? You'll also find people advocating shooting undocumented immigrants on sight, carpet-bombing civilians in countries that don't agree with our foreign policy, lynching black people, and every other sort of lunacy most of us disagree with. I, for one, am proud of living in a country where even that kind of speech is protected. Otherwise, the slippery slope is unavoidable. For example, the anti-Muslim rethoric that abounds in American right-wing blogs would be illegal in some Western European countries we consider part of the free world. It all boils down to "I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to my death your right to say it."

Edited June 6, 2008 by Baires

[MacMadame 81]

I Wait until your child is abducted by a NAMBLA member... I bet you'd have different views about their "rights" then.

Not really. I am not such a hypocrite that I would totally abandon my beliefs about free speech just because someone hurt me or my family. I would do everything in my power to make sure the abductor was put in prison for as long as possible, but I wouldn't sue NAMBLA as a group saying it was their fault my kid was abducted.