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.
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.
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."
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.
The students are no better off if the misinformation happens through carelessness vs. intentional misleading.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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 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.
Well since it's not being discussed in context of whether it's right or wrong, but used simply as a example of the ACLU's operations, I think it'll be okay. However, if the mods ask me not to bring it up or make reference to it, I'll comply.
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).
That's just not true. Many measures were implemented to limit the 'tyranny of the majority.'
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?
