The Logic of the ACLU

So you've given up on the point that ID should be taught alongside evolution? Great!

Oh, and how many creationists go on to be biology majors? And of those, how many graduate?

its biology, how hard can it be?

miniverchivi said:

Yes, there are conclusions that follow some of the findings produced by science that strongly favor evolution, but I still wouldn't look at that as being 100% proof (so much so, that an organization wants to box everyone out of teaching an alternative).

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I've expressed myself clearly: it is not simply that there are conclusions that follow from evolutionary theory, it is that there are predictions generated from it. Such as, if you have two fossilized animals exhibiting intermediary characters between two larger taxa, it follows that there should be a species intermediary to that. It also follows that this species would be found in a strata of the earth that formed in a time period between the two other animals. Using this information, we can predict when and were such an animal would occur. Neil Shubin used this method to find tiktaalik roseae and several transitional species between mammals and reptiles. Far from being an aberration, this is how science is done. You generate predictions based on a larger theory and then seek to test them. What we've found is that evolution has an extraordinary predictive power that intelligent design and creationism have not yielded. Rather than simply being a dogma to learn, evolution is a tool to use in investigating the natural world.

Being that there isn't 100% proof, I just don't see how the government/courts can officially take a particular side in this one without even putting it to a vote of the people.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 100% proof in science. Science is the best possible evaluation of the best possible evidence with the best possible tools. It falters along, groping in the dark, doing its best to make sense of an extraordinarily complicated world. But it works, for whatever weird reason. And it's becoming more important everyday, for every day life.

Teaching students how to think scientifically and providing them with the best possible information we currently have is a duty of the education system. It is perfectly acceptable for the math teacher to believe that the orbits of planets are governed by Ximbo the Cosmic Space Capuchin, but when he teach's Ximbo's theory of circles instead of Pythagoras' he isn't doing his job. He is there to educate, not inculcate. Evolution was arrived at by the scientific community using the best possible methods of investigation and has continued to be validated. Intelligent design and creationism have not passed through such gauntlets.

Our math teacher is free to speak his or her mind outside of the classroom, but when inside the classroom he or she is expected to do their job. This isn't the only occupation where this occurs.

If they were willing to put it to a local-level vote, and have the majority rule, I'd accept whatever the outcome was. But, that's not what's happening. They slap us in the face by trying to go over our heads and bully the government into giving them what they want.

Click to expand...

Science isn't a democracy. That's just the truth. You can put all kinds of things in a science classroom, like intelligent design, or alchemy, or paganism, or brer rabbit's adventures, but they aren't scientifically supported. They don't belong in the science classroom. Interestingly, the attempt to get intelligent design taught in Dover was spearheaded by a small minority of individuals on the Dover schoolboard (who were all voted out of office in the next election) supported by an agenda driven national organization.

Also, I know that you said this to someone else, but regarding the idea that "we have incorrect knowledge in history books, so what's the big deal about having incorrect information in science books too?"; there's a difference between errors being taught through neglect and errors being specifically and actively inserted into the curriculum.

...just like they do for Abortion (I figured I'd switch it up so that people don't get board with the thread going around in circles with the evolution topic - but still feel free to go back to that if you guys see fit or had other points you wanted to make)

Click to expand...

Would you be willing to name some specific cases on this that you'd like to talk about?

Now, they constantly try to link the "pro-life" side of the debate to Christianity so they can complain that people's rights are being infringed on because of religion. Now on this particular issue, I'm an Atheist, but I'm anti-Abortion for the most part. I make rational concessions on cases of rape, the mother's life being in danger (because it wasn't any decision of their own that caused the situation) But other than that...I completely oppose it strictly due to the fact that I think it's irresponsible on the part of the person who's not taking the proper precautions.

Click to expand...

Why is it up to you to decide the proper precautions?

Now, the areas that I agreed to make a concession in only make up a very small percentage of the reasons for getting an abortion, the rest all pertain to making a selfish personal choice IMO

Click to expand...

I make selfish choices all the time. I drink too much whisky, I train in boxing, brazilian jiu jitsu and MMA, I eat too much red meat and I never sleep. This is going to come back and bite me in the keister in my old age, but my selfish choices do not forbid me from having medical procedures. Why should your opinion dictate what someone else can do with their own body?

Prisons need to give the prisoners certain things, mainly for control. If the prisoner starts acting up they can take those things away. There are different kinds of prisons depending on what the person done, some focus more on rehabilitation, while others are just storage.

The closer a inmate gets to his release date, the lower level of prison they go to. These lower levels of prisons try and teach prisons to be productive in society.

In that case, segregation and anti-miscegenation laws would still be in effect.

miniverchivi said:

I would agree with that statement, however, what does it have to do with civil rights or equal rights? I would say absolutely nothing which is why I don't think it's a matter for ACLU to decide.

Click to expand...

Again, we've decided that it's important for teachers to instruct students in science. That's their job. The science classroom is not a podium for their personal views and if they want to express those views there are a number of avenues that they can decide to do so in. They are paid tax dollars to be science instructors, not religious ones. The ACLU didn't decide this, it presented its case to a court and the court decided.

In my opinion, it makes no difference how the misinformation is delivered from the students' perspective. If a math teacher was to teach the kids that 2+2=5, would it matter if they were doing deliberately or accidentally? The kids were still given the wrong info and I doubt the ACLU would jump in on a case like that.

Click to expand...

Yo, if you don't see a difference between water coming into a boat from a hole in the hull and someone trying to flood the ship, I don't know what to tell you. Yeah, there's a problem in our boat. It's got water in it. That doesn't mean we should tolerate the dude saying "HEY I GOT THESE GREAT BUCKETS FULL OF WATER LETS FILL UP THE REST OF IT."

The ACLU even states that it's their viewpoint on their website

...which isn't true, I'm not religious, yet I still oppose it in 99% of cases.

Click to expand...

Ok, that's their position, but I'm asking for cases where you think the ACLU specifically acted needlessly antireligious in regards to opposing abortion, not simply statements.

I'd also be curious as to how active you have been in opposing abortion? Would you say it's a mischaracterization to say that there's been an enormous push from religious voters to ban abortion and/or that anti-abortion activism is derived mainly from religious folks?

Also, it's not so much about telling someone what they can or can't do with their own body, it's about what we're going to allow them to do with another life.

Click to expand...

Sez you.

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School


"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania


"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

Since it isn't a religious matter and many scientists even acknowledge it is a human life, I'll circle back to the idea that it should be left up a vote of the people on whether or not killing your own child is before it's born should be legal.

Click to expand...

Just because some scientists have beliefs on it doesn't mean it's not a religious matter. Many scientists are religious and have religious perspectives. These folks have stated their opinions, which may have been informed by religion, science or that philosophy class they took in undergrad.

If that's what the majority wants, I'll accept it, but lets not sugar coat it by calling it "terminating a fetus" because describing it bluntly sounds too harsh. It's not the ACLU's job to go over our heads.

Click to expand...

"Let's call it slicing a tumor out of your calf by means of saw and blood, bone and sweat with the physicians wrenching the poisonous little sucker out of your body instead of surgery." The ACLU is not going over anyone's head, it's engaging in legal process. The courts and the process of bringing forth suits and such is part of how our system works.

Which brings up another topic on the ACLU, they deliberately try to go over the heads of the people. When proposition 8 was on the ballot, they had already filed legal proceedings before the vote was even completed trying to demand that the supreme court invalidate it if it passed. They even admit to doing so on their own website.

Does anyone else see the hipocrisy in that? Trying to use the constitution for their agenda, and when they see the constitutional process isn't going to end up working in their favor, they urge the court to invalidate the vote of the people.
I'm all for gay marriage, I think it should be legal, but I'm not willing to go against the process that this country was founded upot to accomplish that.

Click to expand...

As far as I know filing legal proceedings and such ahead of time is common procedure. I think we're discussing things that are banned on the site with regard to gay marriage.

miniverchivi said:

Provided that the majority wouldn't have voted them out by now.

The will of the people isn't always right, it just defines how our laws are created. You can find things that are wrong with any system of government but overall, I think this system has produced more positives than negatives.

Click to expand...

That's just not true. Many measures were implemented to limit the 'tyranny of the majority.'

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/05/steven-hayes-convicted-petit-murder-trial_n_751660.html

And what should these two monsters get? A comfortable lifestyle in some high tech prison?

I am not a supporter of the ACLU. Any organization that would support and defend NAMBLA is not on my list of credible organizations.

In 1969, David Gumaer a police undercover agent, revealed that "206 past leading members of the ACLU had a combined record of 1,754 officially cited Communist front affiliations"

William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).

Now consider........ Ruth Bader Ginsberg one of our Supreme Court Justices was once an ACLU officer.

mdancin4theLord said:

I am not a supporter of the ACLU. Any organization that would support and defend NAMBLA is not on my list of credible organizations.

Click to expand...

So, NAMBLA members don't have any legal rights, or what?

mdancin4theLord said:

I am not a supporter of the ACLU. Any organization that would support and defend NAMBLA is not on my list of credible organizations.

In 1969, David Gumaer a police undercover agent, revealed that "206 past leading members of the ACLU had a combined record of 1,754 officially cited Communist front affiliations"

William Donahue, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union (Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1985).

Now consider........ Ruth Bader Ginsberg one of our Supreme Court Justices was once an ACLU officer.

Click to expand...

Love them or hate them, the ACLU is consistent in their zealous advocacy for personal freedoms, especially those enshrined in the Constitution (the ACLU's interpretation of it anyway). They have represented Christians and people (and groups) of other faiths, perverts, criminals, students, and others to preserve an ideal of Constitutional liberty that places a high premium on personal liberty.

I don't agree with every position they have ever taken. However, it is problematic when one says that "any group that would represent x is not ... [a] credible organization ...." A good legal advocate defends the legitimate rights of even those who they might unpleasant or even deplorable. I have represented some pretty disgusting people in my career as an attorney, because I believe that the basic liberties that we are granted are not conditioned upon one being a good, nice, pleasant, or otherwise worthy person. I disagree with some of the positions that the ACLU has taken, but, as un-PC as it is to say it, their representation of NAMBLA is not one of them.

miniverchivi said:

The people themselves have the same rights as you or I, it's the additional rights they think they should have that are problematic.

Click to expand...

Do they not have the right to freely advocate for those additional rights?

miniverchivi said:

Well, they have the right to not get beaten up by other people because of their viewpoint (as long as they don't act on it)

The idea of calling what they want "rights" makes my stomach turn, but I guess they have the free speech right to say that's what they want and if they want to throw money at the ACLU to try to get that pushed thru, oh well, but it's about as pointless as trying to say you want to get murder legalized since this legislation would clearly violate the constitutional rights of another human being.

If the ACLU gets NAMBLA-rights pushed through, the country is officially in the toilet and I'm moving to my family's summer home in Canada and getting a programming job in Toronto. (And taking my my 15 year old brother with me so he's not stuck down here in Pedo-land)

Click to expand...

Your post indicates that you don't really have any idea what the relationship between the ACLU and NAMBLA was. The short version is that the ACLU defended NAMBLA when they were sued because a child rapist visited their website. The ACLU has had nothing to do with NAMBLA's goal of lowering or removing the age of consent.

DeathMagus said:

Your post indicates that you don't really have any idea what the relationship between the ACLU and NAMBLA was. The short version is that the ACLU defended NAMBLA when they were sued because a child rapist visited their website. The ACLU has had nothing to do with NAMBLA's goal of lowering or removing the age of consent.

Click to expand...

This is why I don't like statements like "If [the ACLU] represents groups like [NAMBLA], they are not worth supporting." Context is important. If they were assisting NAMBLA in promoting its agenda, lowering the age of consent, or legalizing sexual relations with children, then I could understand the outrage. But, in this case, it was about representing their right to express an extraordinarily unpopular opinion and one that is deeply offensive to most, if not all reasonable people. But, isn't that the very type of speech that the 1st Amendment is created for?!?