The Logic of the ACLU

[ThatRobGuy]

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?!?

If you check my previous post, they didn't get sued for hosting their website with their unpopular opinions, the parents of the victim were suing on the grounds that he used their training material out of one of their publications to enable him to abduct, kill, then rape their child (in that exact order).

If NAMBLA could get in trouble for posting opinions online, I suspect they would have been shut down already.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7617136-12/#post59390454

 

[DeathMagus]

Wow, and organization dedicated to statutory rape had a rapist visiting it...there's shocker

I wasn't about to go to their website to do any research...I prefer to not have my door kicked in by the feds.

However, from the non-NAMBLA resources I was able to find about the case, it wasn't a scenario where a former rapist visited the website and someone snagged their IP address. It was a person who was a member and recieved regular publications and in specific, a publication that offered info on the following:



Being able to publish what you want is constitutionally protected, being an accessory to a crime is not constitutionally protected.

However, in regards to my OP about the criminal justice system not being harsh enough...it's not comforting to know that after the guy, using what he learned from NAMBLA's training material, smothered a 10 year old boy to death with a gasoline soaked rag, then had sex with his dead body, will be eligible for parole after 23 years.

So in this case, it wasn't a matter of expressing an opinion, they helping someone commit a crime...that's called being an accessory

So it was alleged. But, you know, the suite was dropped, and criminal charges were never filed in the first place. So...that's what you'll condemn NAMBLA on?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So it was alleged. But, you know, the suite was dropped, and criminal charges were never filed in the first place. So...that's what you'll condemn NAMBLA on?

Which part is the alleged part? As far as I can see, NAMBLA acknowledged he was a subscriber (which they couldn't really cover up even if they wanted to due to ISP logs), the police found the NAMBLA publications giving instruction on how to gain a child's trust (or as they refer to children according to the article "Romantic Partner") and avoid law enforcement, and the ACLU funded the legal aid for NAMBLA when the parents of the victims went after them for it.

Do I really need another reason to condemn NAMBLA? They advocate and help facilitate the raping of underage people, what other reason do I need?

But I guess I see the ACLU's point...I guess supporting molestation advocates isn't nearly as bad as putting a Jesus picture up in the principle's office.

 

[DeathMagus]

Which part is the alleged part? As far as I can see, NAMBLA acknowledged he was a subscriber (which they couldn't really cover up even if they wanted to due to ISP logs), the police found the NAMBLA publications giving instruction on how to gain a child's trust (or as they refer to children according to the article "Romantic Partner") and avoid law enforcement, and the ACLU funded the legal aid for NAMBLA when the parents of the victims went after them for it.

Do I really need another reason to condemn NAMBLA? They advocate and help facilitate the raping of underage people, what other reason do I need?

But I guess I see the ACLU's point...I guess supporting molestation advocates isn't nearly as bad as putting a Jesus picture up in the principle's office.

Mistyped. "so that's what you'll condemn the ACLU for"

 

[Jro]

I agree, and if it were solely up to my person opinion, evolution would win the in the realm of science class. My objection is that they're (The courts with ACLU encouragement) are passing laws that limit 1st amendment rights without having a vote of the people.

Only insofar as it is pursuant to their job, which makes sense. You can also get fired for criticizing your boss, for badmouthing your corporation, for sexually harassing your employees, etc. These folks opinions aren't being banned- they're free to disseminate them in their private time, or heck, get a job teaching private school. Also, it's not like this was a surprise surge of teachers who wanted to teach intelligent design- they were being required to by the school board. The school board wasn't elected on a platform of "we'll start teaching intelligent design," and were voted out of office in the following election. So whose free speech was that?

From the passenger's perpective (if that's the example we're going to use)...no. If I'm going to drown either way, I really don't care about the details.

Yup, but we're designing a system here. We want the water out of the boat, and just because there are two sources of water doesn't mean we shouldn't address both. There's certainly nothing wrong with saying "Hey... You with the bucket! STOPIT"

That statement alone (the one that I posted) speaks volumes about their position on the religious folks. They're using the fact that religious people are pro life as a reason to justify their pro choice position.

Essentially, they're saying that being opposite the side of religion automatically makes their position correct. Yes, I realize they have other reasons, but they must have been afraid that their other reasons couldn't stand up on their own if they had to default back their old "separation of church and state" card.

Why do they need to have other reasons? What is this, do you get points for originality in court or something? If they're arguing that the legislation violates the establishment clause, I guess they think it's the best legal tack. They might be wrong but heck, worth a shot. Do you think that there should just not be lawyers who argue things?

I don't march around in front of abortion clinics if that's what you're getting at. It doesn't accomplish anything other than making my side of the debate look silly. However, I have voted against it every chance I've gotten.

More getting at the fact that the most vehement and active opposition of abortion is primarily coming from and informed by religious folks.

Sure they are, just like every other lobbyist in this country that has more money to throw at their causes than the average American. They try to strongarm the court system into going against what the majority voted for.

As far as the legal proceedings go, it's okay when they're trying to appeal a court ruling on a particular case, but trying to appeal a vote of the people is a little different. I said the same thing when republican lobbyists influenced the supreme court to do the same thing in the 2000 election (much to the chagrin of many of my fellow conservatives).

Some legislation is not legal. If it is, for example, unconstitutional, you can't vote on it. Even if the majority want to enact unconstitutional legislation, it is the federal government's job to stop it. We need people reviewing and challenging these laws, because that's how the system works. We don't have unrestrained mob rule, and the ACLU handles certain kinds of cases in an attempt to prevent that. It sounds like you disagree with them in principle, and not on this one issue, so I'm curious, how do you think illegal legislation would be challenged, if not by appealing it to the courts?

While I agree that the founding fathers expressed that certain rights weren't to be touched for any reason, I don't think the ones we're discussing here were on that list. Well, except for the right to life, which abortion violates in many cases, but the ACLU is on the opposite side of that one so it really doesn't apply to this discussion.

Even if anti-abortion was truly a 100% religious ideal, how far can we go with the "if it's religious, we can't use it because that would be oppressing the non-religious". Thou shalt not Steal is a religious value, should we make theft legal so that we aren't cramming religion down the throats of the burglars? I know that's an extreme example, but really, where does that line get drawn?

Well, we make decisions on things like this using a complex system of courts, politicians and votes, which hopefully, guide this misshappen and cobbled together country full of idiots in the proper direction.

 

[sandwiches]

Apparently, in this case, it'd be the Atheist mistake of "It's only a theory" since I'm not a creationist.

I'm not on your side so now comes the part where I get accused of not reading the article you posted and it's time to start correcting me on misuse of vocabulary from the 10th grade science class.

It's not about "sides." It's about making the same mistakes that creationists make when attacking evolution.

If you haven't gotten it yet, I've been playing Devil's (or I guess in this case Christian's Advocate) because this thread isn't about the scientific aspect as much as it's about the Constitution and the ACLU. I realize that scientists have discovered some amazing things that strongly support evolution, but nobody has ever witnessed a single cell organism evolve into a human the same way nobody has ever witnessed anyone turn water into wine, raise someone from the dead, or walk on water. I would say the same thing to a Christian organization that tried to block a school from teaching evolution. If both have never been witnessed, then what gives ACLU the right to strongarm the government into blocking one side and allowing the other? (When there's clearly no constitutional grounds for them to do so)

Disclaimer: This isn't about sides. This is about evidence and science.
To be quite plain, you are simply wrong in your understanding of evolution. It isn't only about single-celled organisms turning into humans or whatever. I would suggest further reading into what evolution is and isn't and I'll reiterate this point: WE HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION AND SPECIATION. I can't make this clearer. We have observed the process evolution several times, in fact.

Creationism cannot be taught in a science or biology class because it is neither. Evolution is. If you don't understand why this is, then I would also recommend reading into what science is.

 

[dies-l]

If you check my previous post

My post came first, so I am not quite sure how I am expected to have read prior to posting my previous post.

, they didn't get sued for hosting their website with their unpopular opinions, the parents of the victim were suing on the grounds that he used their training material out of one of their publications to enable him to abduct, kill, then rape their child (in that exact order).

If you know anything about 1st Amendment law, you will know that the 1st Amendment line is fuzziest (and most in need of defense) when there exists an articulated reason to justify limited free speech rights. The easiest way to deprive a person of their 1st Amendment rights is to frame the issue as though it is about something other than mere words. But, the Court has held that one cannot use the various tort theories to do an end run around the 1st Amendment if the effect in a given case is to limit free speech. So, if a wrongful death case is based on "the Defendant said something offensive that helped my child's murderer feel justified in what he was planning to do", then the wrongful death tort theory does not become a basis to disregard the 1st Amendment. There still has to be some tortious act committed that is not constitutionally protected in order for such a case to proceed.

In the NAMBLA case, it was truly debatable whether such an act existed. I haven't seen anything to indicate that NAMBLA was producing "how to rape and kill young boys" manual. In fact, such a publication would seem to against NAMBLA's stated purpose which is to try to paint "man boy love" as a morally legitimate practice. So, in the absence of some act that a reasonable person would be know would be likely to cause death, a wrongful death suit is not warranted. And, in this case, it looks an awful lot like NAMBLA is being sued for having offensive beliefs.

And, I agree that they are offensive. I agree that NAMBLA's statements are enraging and I can't blame anyone who might be inclined to be hostile toward NAMBLA. But, as much as I despise what they stand for, I do believe that the 1st Amendment exists primarily to protect those whose opinions are offensive.

If NAMBLA could get in trouble for posting opinions online, I suspect they would have been shut down already.

That sounds a bit naive to me.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

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

The name NAMBLA respresents.......Men who love sex with little boys. This kind of activity is illegal.

AN INTRODUCTION TO NAMBLA

Would you support a group called......LRATLG?
(Lets Rape and Torture Little Girls)

What they are doing is illegal.

The ACLU goes beyond defending them. ACLU lawyers come to the aid of anyone who has conflicts with morality or anything that chips away especially at the foundations of biblical morality. I remember when they defended pro-bono the two men who brutally raped and killed Jeff Curley. They lured this little boy into their car and when he refused their sexual advances they choked him to death with a gasoline soaked rag. And if that was not enough...they took him across state lines to one of their houses and had sex with his dead body....before stuffing it into a cement filled rubbermaid container. Then they tossed him into a river.

So you ask....dont they have legal rights? Yes sure. Would you defend them if your kid was the one that they defended here in the Curley case? Anyone who says they would be ok with it is lying. Funny they want the bible banned because its hate speech and they defend the two guys who did this to this little boy.

The sicker the person, the sicker the act, the more the ACLU is drawn to it. Not to eliminate it...to protect it.

You know its funny they don't defend the parents who want education vouchers for their children. They are not for freedom in this category. This would be against the goals of the ACLU. They want kids in our public schools there they are the easiest for the state to brainwash. Our system today is partly the result of the ACLU. Not only do they want our schools to be devoid of God and values...they want this for the country as well.

They win the majority of their cases but here is not one of them. Here is one they lost.

(New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747.)
“The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit.

The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be "a gross violation of privacy."
Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU
Donahue William(Transaction Publishers)
Release date: 01 February, 2001

I also believe the ACLU defended NAMBLAS right to publish stuff like "the Rape and Escape Manual." Well the actual title is "The Survival Manual:The Man's Guide to STaying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

ACLU and Pedophilia - Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Exploitation

"On the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, when FBI and Homeland Security agents were tracking down illegal Iraqi immigrants considered to be dangerous, the ACLU set up a telephone hotline and conducted "Know Your Rights" training sessions giving illegals free advice on how to avoid deportation."

" According to columnist Debbie Schlussel, ACLU attorney Noel Saleh "openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah." Moreover, writes Schlussel, "He [Saleh] has represented a number of Islamic terrorists, including Ibrahim Parlak and 'former' PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] terrorist Imad Hamad."

The ACLU’s affiliations with terrorists are not restricted solely to foreigners. For instance, the organization once named unrepentant New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board. Dohrn, along with her husband Bill Ayers, was a 1960s anti-American militant and a leader of Weatherman – described by Ayers as “an American Red Army.”

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - Discover the Networks

 

[DeathMagus]

The name NAMBLA respresents.......Men who love sex with little boys. This kind of activity is illegal.

AN INTRODUCTION TO NAMBLA

Would you support a group called......LRATLG?
(Lets Rape and Torture Little Girls)

What they are doing is illegal.

The ACLU goes beyond defending them. ACLU lawyers come to the aid of anyone who has conflicts with morality or anything that chips away especially at the foundations of biblical morality. I remember when they defended pro-bono the two men who brutally raped and killed Jeff Curley. They lured this little boy into their car and when he refused their sexual advances they choked him to death with a gasoline soaked rag. And if that was not enough...they took him across state lines to one of their houses and had sex with his dead body....before stuffing it into a cement filled rubbermaid container. Then they tossed him into a river.

So you ask....dont they have legal rights? Yes sure. Would you defend them if your kid was the one that they defended here in the Curley case? Anyone who says they would be ok with it is lying. Funny they want the bible banned because its hate speech and they defend the two guys who did this to this little boy.

The sicker the person, the sicker the act, the more the ACLU is drawn to it. Not to eliminate it...to protect it.

You know its funny they don't defend the parents who want education vouchers for their children. They are not for freedom in this category. This would be against the goals of the ACLU. They want kids in our public schools there they are the easiest for the state to brainwash. Our system today is partly the result of the ACLU. Not only do they want our schools to be devoid of God and values...they want this for the country as well.

They win the majority of their cases but here is not one of them. Here is one they lost.

(New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747.)
“The ACLU's position is this: criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography. This is the kind of lawyerly distinction that no one on the Supreme Court found convincing. And with good reason: as long as a free market in child pornography exists, there will always be some producers willing to risk prosecution. Beyond this, there is also the matter of how the sale of child pornography relates either to free speech or the ends of good government. But most important, the central issue is whether a free society should legalize transactions that involve the wholesale sexploitation of children for profit.

The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be "a gross violation of privacy."
Twilight of Liberty: The Legacy of the ACLU
Donahue William(Transaction Publishers)
Release date: 01 February, 2001

I also believe the ACLU defended NAMBLAS right to publish stuff like "the Rape and Escape Manual." Well the actual title is "The Survival Manual:The Man's Guide to STaying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

ACLU and Pedophilia - Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Exploitation

"On the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, when FBI and Homeland Security agents were tracking down illegal Iraqi immigrants considered to be dangerous, the ACLU set up a telephone hotline and conducted "Know Your Rights" training sessions giving illegals free advice on how to avoid deportation."

" According to columnist Debbie Schlussel, ACLU attorney Noel Saleh "openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah." Moreover, writes Schlussel, "He [Saleh] has represented a number of Islamic terrorists, including Ibrahim Parlak and 'former' PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine] terrorist Imad Hamad."

The ACLU’s affiliations with terrorists are not restricted solely to foreigners. For instance, the organization once named unrepentant New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board. Dohrn, along with her husband Bill Ayers, was a 1960s anti-American militant and a leader of Weatherman – described by Ayers as “an American Red Army.”

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - Discover the Networks

The ACLU defended the two men who murdered and raped Jeff Curley? That's news to me. Will you please link me to the news release indicating this?

 

[IzzyPop]

That pesky ACLU. Not only do they protect terrorists, atheists, leftists, and other assorted boogeymen, they have also represented Rush Limbaugh, christian high school students that have been forbidden the right to pray or have religious clubs, street corner proselytizers, various pro-life organizations, and a whole host of other groups that seem to hate what the ACLU stands for.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

dies said, "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."

They are consistent in what cases they take. They have an agenda that is for sure. They take a few token Christian cases a year just to say that they equally defend both sides....but the majority of their cases are in the category of defending vile and deviant acts against society...like in the case of Jeff Curley.

"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."

I have every right to my opinion and to view this organization as evil. History shows what this organization is about. From the get go communism was their goal. Has it changed today? I do not see the ACLU as some defender of American liberty...just the opposite. They like I said have an agenda just look at the people associated with the organization. Their worldviews are basically the same. It has nothing to do with protecting liberty but destroying it. After 9-11......they jumped on the bandwagon of helping the enemy in many ways. They were pro-active in trying to tie the hands of our law enforcement...so that finding the criminals and bringing them to justice did not happen. "They led a coalition of civil liberties groups urging city counsels across the United States to pass resolutions creating "Civil Liberties Safe Zones,"; that is to be compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act. The ACLU also endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004 which was introduced by leftist Democrats in Congress to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national security policies that had been adopted after the September 11th terrorist attacks."

"On the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, when FBI and Homeland Security agents were tracking down illegal Iraqi immigrants considered to be dangerous, the ACLU set up a telephone hotline and conducted "Know Your Rights" training sessions giving illegals free advice on how to avoid deportation."

These examples are not about defending clients that comes in...in need of legal representation. These are acts that are listed in their agenda book....

They lobby against any policy that would prohibit non citizens from being airport screeners...that would authorize personnel from basically doing their jobs at airports. They have represented Muslim and Middle Eastern plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits against numerous airlines.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) - Discover the Networks

They believe profiling is wrong and they want open borders. They quickly go to the aid of terrorists and radicals who want to destroy our country. That says a lot about not just defending liberties......BUT WHOSE LIBERTIES THEY DEFEND. Oh they most certainly have an agenda.

It is not the innocent American citizen they defend......they select their candidates very carefully.

 

[Jase]

That pesky ACLU. Not only do they protect terrorists, atheists, leftists, and other assorted boogeymen, they have also represented Rush Limbaugh, christian high school students that have been forbidden the right to pray or have religious clubs, street corner proselytizers, various pro-life organizations, and a whole host of other groups that seem to hate what the ACLU stands for.

Actually, when looking at their historical case list, the ACLU has defended Christians on 1st Amendment issues more than any other type of case.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

The ACLU defended the two men who murdered and raped Jeff Curley? That's news to me. Will you please link me to the news release indicating this?

They represented NAMBLA in the Jeff Curley case...which in my opinion is the same thing. The two men who killed him were both associated with Nambla and had their materials.




http://people.howstuffworks.com/aclu4.htm

 

[AtheistVet]

They represented NAMBLA in the Jeff Curley case...which in my opinion is the same thing. The two men who killed him were both associated with Nambla and had their materials.

Then your opinion conflicts with reality.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Then your opinion conflicts with reality.

Explain.

Are you denying that the two men who killed Jeff did not have NAMBLA material? The fact is one of them was a member because they found the card in the backseat along with NAMBLA material about "adult-child sexual relationships." I also believe they found evidence that they viewed a NAMBLA website right before the murder. The ACLU maintained that one of the monsters was a heterosexual. So ironic that these two guys who liked the idea of sex with young people WOULD PICK A LITTLE BOY. What heterosexual would do that?

And to say this material did not give them any ideas? LMAO This is inciting violence.

This was a hate crime against a young innocent child. Today we have laws on the books to go after people like this just based on this. The ACLU LOVESSSS cases that are pro-sodomy...pro-abortion/infanticide and pornography. And especially ones that go after Christianity.

And so as Baldwin the founder of the ACLU said......"We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." (Source: Trial and Error, by Geo. Grant)



Following are some of the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:

• the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);​
• the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);​
• the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);​
• the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);​
• the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);​
• opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);​
• opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);​
• opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);​
• opposition of parental choice in children's education (Policy 80)​

-- not to mention the defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc. (Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).

http://dianedew.com/aclu.htm

 

[AtheistVet]

Your opinion that representing NAMBLA in the Jeff Curley case is the same as defending the man that murdered him conflicts with the reality that ACLU did nothing of the sort.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Actually, when looking at their historical case list, the ACLU has defended Christians on 1st Amendment issues more than any other type of case.

Today the ACLU is our countries number one censor on religion. As I said they take a few token cases a year.

ACLU: Anti-Christian Liberals Union : Stop The ACLU

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My post came first, so I am not quite sure how I am expected to have read prior to posting my previous post.

If you know anything about 1st Amendment law, you will know that the 1st Amendment line is fuzziest (and most in need of defense) when there exists an articulated reason to justify limited free speech rights.

I didn't type that first part very well, I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't read my post, I was just stating that I mentioned it the post I did right before I replied to yours, sorry for not being clear on that part.

I agree, the 1st amendment can get fuzzy in terms of free speech. However, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to say what they want on the matter, I'm suggesting that the crime was making training material available for people who have already declared their intent (IE: Joining an organization dedicated to persuing a criminal activity).

An example I would use is that of a gun dealer. It's completely legal to own a gun store and sell guns. But, part of that job is screening folks who want to buy them (IE: the fun 3 page questionaire you get to fill out when you buy one). It'd be like if a person clearly declares that they want to buy the gun so they can shoot someone they don't like and the gun dealer still sells it to him anyway and customer commits the crime, then someone tries to defend the gun dealer with the 2nd amendment.

For the NAMBLA case mentioned above, they weren't getting sued for having a website expressing their views. They were under attack for providing training materials pertaining to how to commit a particular crime, to a person who's already declared intent and interest in commiting that very crime.

I agree that they have the right to put whatever sick, twisted opinions they want on a website or publication, but training material isn't an opinion or idea, it's a how-to. I think that's why they were under attack.

 

[The Paul]

I'm an evolutionist, someone who believes that evolution is far more rational than the ID/Creationism concept.

I truly believe it cannot be tested.

Can you present some results of tests they've done to prove evolution as a fact rather than a theory? Unless they've reproduced everything in the series of events that make up the theory of evolution, it hasn't been fully tested.

That's really weird. It's not any less ignorant than creationism, really. I mean, you're claiming to have no more knowledge than the typical creationist.

Where do you think the theory of evolution came from? Do you think it is just a guess? Do you believe it because you trust the integrity of the prophet Darwin?

Did you really just pick it up like a religion?

I've occasionally suspected people of doing so. I've never seen anyone actually make the claim.

 

[The Paul]

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Steven Hayes Convicted In Petit Home Invasion Murders

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

So some people committed horrible crimes.

What's more important

1) Prevent similar crimes in the future
2) Satisfying our desire for revenge against them.

Pick one.