Anti-Christian Liberties Union

http://www.nbc4.tv/politics/3395668/detail.html



LOS ANGELES -- Hundreds of people gathered outside the Board of Supervisors' meeting room Tuesday to protest its plans to negotiate with the American Civil Liberties Union and remove a cross from the county seal.

People carrying signs comparing the ACLU to the Taliban lined Temple Street at Grand Avenue in front of the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration in downtown Los Angeles.

Others held signs reading: "Jews for the Seal," "Anti-Christian Liberties Union" and "Stop the Cultural Cleansing. Stop the ACLU."

[/me adds pagens for the seal]

Many drivers, including one in a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department car, honked their horns in support of the protesters.

In a May 19 letter to each supervisor, the ACLU of Southern California argued that the "Latin cross" on the seal is a "sectarian religious symbol that represents the beliefs of one segment of the county's diverse population."

The ACLU contends the inclusion of the cross on the seal represents a violation of the constitutional mandate on the separation of church and state.

A possible compromise would be to replace the cross with the image of a Spanish mission and the indigenous people that predated the missionaries.

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

so it seems the cross is there to represent the Spanish missionaries and not in any way a state sponsored religion. what kind of sick mind is behind this. could it be...satan? (j/k ruth buzzy and all that) where's the governator when you need'em?

if they used a mission on the seal what would they do with the cross on top that they all had? how can someone be so offended by a symbol that is a part of California’s history?

Errr

Quote:

---

"Anti-Christian Liberties Union"

---

I wonder if your Constitution gives you the right to be "anti" anyone else's similar rights?

just a thought before you vote

Good Day All,

The following is one of the most misused and abused tenents in all of American History:

Quote:

---

the separation of church and state

---

How it was perverted from its original intent, to this beast that is used today is amazing.

In short it was to prevent the government from controlling the church(s).

Sad to see what folks will do.

cheers

RElyt
I always thought that the seperation of church and state was to stop the church from controlling the goverment. In any case this is just another example of taking a principle too far.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
Errr



I wonder if your Constitution gives you the right to be "anti" anyone else's similar rights?

just a thought before you vote

---

THis was a bad joke, just a play on there name.

The ACLU isn't anti anything they jsut want the constitution aherad to and the law of the land fallowed, I understand that the religious right thinks they are above the law but that is irelivent.

The ACLU supports the following:

• legalization of child pornography
• legalization of drugs
• tax exemption for satanists
• legalization of prostitution
• abortion on demand
• mandatory sex education
• forced busing
• ideological testing for court appointees
• public demonstrations for Nazis and Communists
• legalization of polygamy

The ACLU opposes:

• voluntary school prayer
• sobriety checkpoints
• tax exemption for churches
• religious displays in public
• medical safety regulations and reporting
• parental consent laws
• educational vouchers and home schooling
• governmental ethics committees
• prison terms for criminal offenses
• public demonstration for direct action pro-lifers
• teaching "monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage" in the public schools.


ACLU not anti-Christian. :ROFL:

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
The ACLU supports the following:

• legalization of child pornography
• legalization of drugs
• tax exemption for satanists
• legalization of prostitution
• abortion on demand
• mandatory sex education
• forced busing
• ideological testing for court appointees
• public demonstrations for Nazis and Communists
• legalization of polygamy

The ACLU opposes:

• voluntary school prayer
• sobriety checkpoints
• tax exemption for churches
• religious displays in public
• medical safety regulations and reporting
• parental consent laws
• educational vouchers and home schooling
• governmental ethics committees
• prison terms for criminal offenses
• public demonstration for direct action pro-lifers
• teaching "monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage" in the public schools.

ACLU not anti-Christian. :ROFL:

---

I dont know where you got your info for the first half of the list, but if you have some sources where the ACLU supports child poronography or any of the others, please show me.

As far as the second list:

voluntary school prayer - I believe that they are against mandatory school prayer, not voluntary.
tax exemption for churches - Some churches make a sh!tload of money. (Look at the mormon church which owns parts of Pepsi and Albertsons)
religious displays in public - Give me an example.
medical safety regulations and reporting - Give me an example.
parental consent laws - Example?
educational vouchers and home schooling - I had not heard about this one. Will look into it.
governmental ethics committees - Example?
prison terms for criminal offenses - This is way to broad. Thats basically saying they are against all prison terms for criminals.
public demonstration for direct action pro-lifers - Pro Lifers take things a bit too far. I remember seeing pictures of illegal child abortions that pro-lifers put up near my middle school and elementary school. That is just sick and people should not have to look at that when they leave school. Especially children.
teaching "monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage" in the public schools - This is just my opinion: A lot of kids are just going to have sex whether you tell them that you should only do this in marriage or not. Having only "monogamous, heterosexual intercourse within marriage" based teachings are only going to spread disease and bring into the world many unwanted children because kids are not going to know about how to be safe when they have sex.

Overdu I am calling BS on your list...you put crap like that up you bettter have some source..

Oh and why would satanic churches not be tax exempt?

OK, now I am an athiest. And I look at the ACLU and see a definite bias against Christians. There are very selective at what they take on.

Great thoughts MURACU,

However, here’s how it was written:

The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Of particular note is that “…the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment.”

So where did they come from? Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter on January 1, 1802, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. “The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion.”

The local community was extremely alarmed because of earlier hardships with state established churches.

“Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.”

Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)

1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.

Quote:

---

"...the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God.”

---

What a shame such a simple premise has been torgued and twisted by self-serving individuals. In it's purity, it provided protection to the people from the government dictating to the citizens how we should worship God, if we chose to or chose not to..." or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

cheers

The wording of the constitution and those words by Jefferson are EXACTLY why I take my stance. Hanging a cross in one's office in the government building is not an endorsement by the government any more than Bill Clinton carrying his bible around in public. Not even when a president, such as the current one, says "GOD" in a speech. It is their personal expression that I see. It was Christians who wrote the document and those themselves saw the dangers of state sponsored religion in a democracy that abides by a constitution of such power as never before witnessed, no man has ever created such a document in history. They were Christians and even the atheists of the time had their say because of it.

Quote:

---

seperation of church and state

---

Yes there is a difference between church controlling the state and the state controlling the church, but I feel that seperation is the key word, because if one controls the other then you have a biased church or a biased government.

Quote:

---

public demonstrations for Nazis and Communists

---

even if some peoples views are less than friendly, as long as they don't harass or harm anyone i don't really see an issue with it. The fun thing about freedom is that you can go have your own celebration and not worry about theirs if you don't like it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
OK, now I am an athiest. And I look at the ACLU and see a definite bias against Christians. There are very selective at what they take on.

---

I have to call BS on this one also, I hve seen them defend racists, organizations, the klan, neonazis, ect. defending there right to free speach and there right to gather..I have seen cases where they have defended the right for people to pray in public ect. What they are agenst is violations of civil rights, now i relise that most right wingers would happely remove civil rights but I for one am glad there is a group out there defending them.

as for what the founding fathers ment by seperation of church and state, well lets look at the official documents that the first few congrases created...noteably the treaty of tripoly which states that the United States of America is *NOT* a christian nation, this legal document was signed by president Washington and ratified by both houses of congress, i think thats prety much spells out what they had in mind

I have never seen a case where the ACLU defends the right to pray in public, other than non-christian. But I am doing some research since you call BS on it. :) As far as the founding fathers are concerned I take your view, it's not a Chistian state. You missed my point. But they were Christians and like today's leaders they should be able to express religious views without a minority voice calling them Nazi's and communicating that their government "sponsors" a state religion and we are all going to be burned at the cross if we don't comply. And the ACLU should look at it's charter and determine some actions are eliminating constitutional right in the name of their own view of "liberty" I saw that as a BS view. I can't see how removing a cross from the seal of a county called Los Ageles is protecting anyone's "Liberty" and how "forcing" the people to remove it is just and worth the effort and strong arm of the ACLU.

//EDIT oh I have to clarify, I am not saying the ACLU doesn't take some good cases, I am saying that in recent years it has a christian axe to grind.

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty...ID=15897&c=141
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty...?ID=15507&c=29


here are two cases where they are protecting christians rights, unforutnitly there site only dates back to 1999, will keep looking for citations for other cases. What the yfight agensts is the goverment ristricting your right ot pratice your religion/forceing you to pratice what someone in a goverment office felles is the correct religion.

ACLU:

Files lawsuit in Nebraska when the municipal (government) pool authorities told her to remove her “religious” garbs while accompanying her children. In this case they call it discriminatory, but in cases where kids have Christians shirts in school or Christian symbols they sue the school for allowing it. BOTH are government agencies. There is more to this case of course, but in protecting her right to practice her religion at a government facility it seems off to me. They claim in this circumstance it violates her constitutional right and seek actual damages for embarrassment etc

The ACLU praises religious liberty; there are documents after documents detailing how many churches are in the US, of all religions, how many people etc. But their view is any time, ANY time a cross appears on government property it’s automatically a sign of “government sponsored religion” I can’t see how all those people who work for the government are required to never display religious material. I don’t get it.

The Mojave Federal Reserve has a cross in their park. The ACLU determined the primary effect of the cross is to “ADVANCE religion” huh? That is supposed to make me go out and love god almighty? One cross in 1.6 million miles! Lol, good thing I didn’t drive down that road, I would have had a heart attack at the site of it. <sarcasm

In a state of irony here is one for bballad: The Virginia ACLU threatened public park officials of lawsuit when they considered banning baptism of a religious group in the park. One for the Christians? Park officials state the bans were initiated because they had no written guidance and were afraid of violating separation of Church and state policy and being sued by the wrath of liberty protectors. Lol. Alas the ACLU did defend the right for public baptism. As long as they took their cross with ‘em.

In a very long and expensive case the ACLU made sure Boy Scouts would never have preferential use of government lands. Not sure what preferential means, since it’s not clarified anywhere with certainty . Even though they did tones of work cleaning it and rebuilding stuff. Why? Because they are “A self proclaimed religious organization who discriminates on sexual orientation." Yeah they are “boy” scouts. Lol. The real issue here was they pissed off the same sex wing of the ACLU and they got burnt. The boy scout lease of the park was terminated because 2 boys are agnostic and filed suit because they couldn’t go join the scouts because they wouldn’t take the oath. Well if you aren’t willing to take the oath, then WTF?

Another for bballad: Virginia (ACLU is very active in this ultra religious state) ACLU sued the government because they refused and occupancy permit for a church that was recently occupied by another congregation. I wonder if this was more about race or some local political BS, there was a church there and a new African American church comes in and they say they can’t occupy the premise. Very strange. Is this a win for Christians? It was already a church, very confusing.

As I look at the lists all over the US and on the ACLU site http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty...ylist.cfm?c=37 I see my own reaction to the ACLU stance: the government must be cold and neutral in all things. The ACLU is destroying culture as much as it is protecting liberty under the constitution.
Man there are hundreds, just picked some at random. I take that back there are thousands, this site only lists a few. Each state chapter has hundreds. ACLU is busy, except in Michigan where Muslim prayer is allowed to be broadcast over public loudspeakers, where in that case the Michigan chapter says it’s protected.. Huh? As long as speech is treated equally. Interesting that stance all of a sudden comes up when non-Christian religion enters the arena. I have lived with call to prayer for years. It’s a good alarm clock at 5 am. In fact I know them by heart, I can recite them all in native tongue and I have never even been in a mosque outside of 2 circumstances or during siteseeing missions when prayer was not in session. The unclean isn’t welcome at that time. I can see their stance, since it’s a public forum vs. a building but I bet if the tides were turned things would be different. Like if a van went up to a school at recess and did the same thing, BAM. Lawyers galore. Speculation of course, but I think in my mind that would have happened. Too long, adios. In bballads defense, there are many cases where christians are supported for "free speech" and there are many that outnumber them that are against. I think there are personal motivations behind a lot of it. But it's just my opinion. ;)

Road your points seem to be missing the point, its ok (more then ok) for a private indavidual, or group of provate individual to express religious faith/practice faith/speake about there faith, it is illigal for the goverment to restric said practice. the ACLU will fight for you if a local ordanance trries to force yuo to take down a natvity sceen on your lawn a PRIVATE residence.
It is illigal for the goverment or an employee of the govemnt while they are acting as a representitive of the goverment(ie while they are on the clock) to endorse one religion over the rest, or setup a display endorseing one religion, The ACLU will fight a local municiplaity if they set up a nativity set on the lawn of city hall, goverment land and a clear PUBLIC endorsement of christianity.

DO we get the diference its ok for PRIVATE citizans to hold whatever religious vuews they want, if a kid wants to pray in school/wear religious cloths/wear a crucifix it is allowed if a school tries to stop them they are in violation of the law. If A PUBLIC entity or persone acteing as a representitive of the entity (read goverment body) mandates that the kid prays they are in vialation of the law. This is why MANDITORY SCHOOL LEAD prayer is illigal, but a student or group of students can pray all they want in school (assumeing they are not causeing a distrubance to classes)

Remember to take the ACLU as an organization made up of individuals, there are sure to be a few bad eggs but on the whole they work to protect us from the goverment striping us of our freedoms.....Why is it that right winngers claim to be about personal freedom then get mad when we push the goverment out of our personal lives?

What I am saying is, a city council having the nativity scene on the lawn of a capitol isn't an edorcement of religion for the purpose of recruiting or forcing that religion on the populace. It's a display of culture. And the ACLU is destroying that culture by sanitizing anything they can get a foot on. If they have their way we will have to remove half the cultural events in the nation. That's my point of view. Surprising coming from an athiest.

Don't insult me with the private issue. I get the difference, never even brought that up in any of my comments. The reason right wingers bitch about personal freedom is because these are individuals not government programmed zombies. Expressing one's culture is not the entire government "endorsing" a religion. We seem to have alternative definitions of what an endorsement is. To me it is saying "This is a christian organization, you must follow the methodist version of worship, nothing else is to be spoken." and not wearing a santa hat and saying "merry christmas" while hanging some lights on your cube at the DMV. And then I notices after destroying that, they have no issue with actual spoken prayer be broadcast over loudspeakers so that entire neighborhoods can hear it. I am not for the govenment mandating anything religious, I just don't see them as doing it they way you, the left and the ACLU see it.

If they have their way it would be "Merry Santitized happy day bballad, and a happy new year." wait strike that, other cultures have the new year during a different time, this one is possibly christian based. "Happy, um I can't think of anything." My culture was destroyed in the early 21st century and all public christian based speech eliminated outside of private fortresses. :D I know it's a little crazy, trying to make a statement on "endorsement" Even the ACLU doesn't go after everything, they know the limitations of their power. For now, I think if they have their way it would be like the opposite. The christians jailing an athiest like me for having uncleant thoughts. Only the ACLU will jail you for saying "Praise the Lord, in a courthouse hallway."

They are asking a culture to dismantle their humanity and become state automatons and forgo feeling. Just because god could be present, but **** they would defend a piece of crap art on a wall, just as long as god isn't on it. I can't help but think that is wrong in a sense of fair play for all.

And for the 4 or 5th time, I see the value in the ACLU. No need to bring up other issues regarding abuses in the government. But a cross way out in a park? A cross on a city founded as a mission? Loudspeaker prayer? There is politics there, that's all I am saying. I am just long winded. Whew.

Yeah I stole this off of a web site: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC037.HTM
I don't have to track down every instance listed. Interesting that I could not find a link to the Policy Guide on the ACLU website, nor could I find a link of an Indes. I did find out that the original Policy Guide was a physical document that had to be paid for.

The ACLU's Policy Guide.

In 1988, the American Civil Liberties Union issued for public purchase its 576-page official Policy Guide.

Since the positions of the radical Left and the ACLU are virtually synonymous, a conservative activist need merely glance through this massive volume to determine exactly where the extreme Left Wing stands on literally any issue.

The ACLU embraces the complete Neoliberal spectrum. Not a single one of the more than 300 "Policy Statements" issued in the Policy Guide is conservative in philosophy. In summary, the ACLU demands;

• legalization of abortion to the day of birth, with no parental interference, and
complete state funding for the indigent;
• legalization of all drugs, including marijuana and the "hard" drugs, like 'crack'
and PCP;
• legalization of all sexual perversions, including sodomy, bestiality, and
necrophilia;
• legalization of all pornography, including "kiddie porn;"
• legalization of all prostitution, even homosexual and child prostitution; and
• immediate passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

OFFICIAL POLICIES OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

ACLU
Policy
Number Official Statement of Policy

4: The ACLU supports the legalization of all pornography, including "kiddie porn."

18: The ACLU supports ending the private rating system of movies.

47: Despite the very clear language of the Second Amendment, the ACLU claims, in its best blind fashion, that "the possession of weapons by individuals is not Constitutionally protected."

62: The ACLU demands that parents should have no role whatever in their children's education. This means that parents would be legally liable to sanctionsfor even attempting to take some control over how their children are educated. The ACLU, of course, virulently opposes all home schooling.

75: The ACLU opposes the school tuition voucher system, because it takes too much control away from the Humanistic school system and puts it in the hands of parents.

76: The ACLU denies that school officials may search school lockers for drugs, even for probable cause.

78: The ACLU states school libraries may give any material to children, including hard-core pornography. Parents should have no input on this matter.

81: The ACLU supports a total ban on Nativity scene displays on public property, but supports the display of Menorahs.

84: The ACLU demands that the words "under God" be removed from Pledge of Allegiance.

88: The ACLU demands that the military chaplain system be scrapped.

92: The ACLU urges an end to all church tax exemptions as a "clear and flagrant breach" of the First Amendment.

120: The ACLU supports making all branches of the Armed Forces completely sex-neutral. All women should be in all branches and treated in exactly the same manner as men, even in combat.

210: The ACLU calls for total legalization of all narcotics and dangerous drugs, including rock cocaine and PCP ("angel dust").

211: The ACLU states that all prostitution should be legalized.

216: The ACLU opposes laws that prohibit public drunkenness.

239: The ACLU opposes the death penalty for any reason whatever, even for repeated offenses by mass murderers.

242: The ACLU demands that all criminals except those guilty of murder should be given a suspended sentence and sent back to the community. Convicted rapists, child molesters, robbers, and burglars should live in our communities.

263: The ACLU supports all abortions through all nine months of pregnancy and states that all abortions should be paid for by the taxpayer.

264: The ACLU thinks that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry, become foster parents, and engage in street prostitution.

268: The ACLU opposes compulsory AIDS contact testing.

306: The ACLU supports Equal Opportunity "numerical remedies" (i.e., enforced quotas).

314: The ACLU endorses the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

315: The ACLU supports "comparable worth." It also supports tax-supported day-care centers for working mothers only: such benefits for homemakers and church-based day care centers are specifically excluded.

318: The ACLU opposes policies that require able-bodied adults to work as a condition for receiving welfare.

Reference: The American Civil Liberties Union's 1988 Policy Guide.

Those items posted by Overdue seem a bit radical in their viewpoints. But they do list references and I followed a few. Wow, I obviously know very little about the ACLU. I wonder if they have changed their currents stance on some of those views. Some of them I agree with, in fact quite a few - that's how twisted my thinking is, but some are absurd and to make a statement they aren't a political biased group doesn't make sense to me. That's like saying the Paul Revere Society is a well balanced non-biased group.

I am going to try and look through some of the sources. This quote worries me:

"Since the positions of the radical Left and the ACLU are virtually synonymous, a conservative activist need merely glance through this massive volume to determine exactly where the extreme Left Wing stands on literally any issue."

Dont do the research! Let us fill you with conservative thoughts! Looks like this might be an interesting read.

Also, I do believe just about every group has some sort of agenda.

Some of these sources are hard to trace.

[1] Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union. Quoted in the National Federation for Decency Journal, September 1988. Page 9.

National Federation for Decency looks like they are now the American Family association and dont have archives online for more than a couple of years. Now this organization looks about as "lets go back to the good old days when things were pure" as you can get. Not really the "fair and balanced" sources I like to see.

[2] Charles Oliver. "Has the ACLU Sold Out?" Reason Magazine, October 1990, pages 20 to 27.

Reason magazine only archives digitally to 1993. No luck here.

Sure it has a conservatice slant, there are source documentation to form one's own opinion. Left Right Middle, wherever you are.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
Sure it has a conservatice slant, there are source documentation to form one's own opinion. Left Right Middle, wherever you are.

---

Exactly my point Road Closed!

I actually agree with you guys on this perspective. The slant is definantly Right and some of the sources are hard to trace. Some of them are quite easy to trace though, and just because the religious right says "this is so", that does not make them wrong, nor does it make the left wrong. We need to look at both sides of issues and make informed decisions.

One for instance is the child pronography issue that someone questioned earlier. When the ACLU was arguing against the pornography filters in school and libraries, and when the ACLU opposes any of the "decency laws" that the right tries to pass, (different issue completely) in reference to Internet Porn; the ACLU claims that if the content is generated by a computer, or if the child cannot be positevely identified as a child, then the image cannot be consideded as child pornography. I can see the technical point of law in this instance. However, I can also see the other point of view, where the image is inherently wrong and has no place in society. Kind of creates an "if you are not for me, then you are against me" attitude. This is kind of like having a date rape site where you drug up your victims and videotape the rape. But, you being smart, alter the images slightly with a computer imaging program or cover the face of yourself and the victim. The raped victim did not give his/her consent to be raped and videotaped. Does this make the images illegal? Not according to the ACLU. The ACLU wants the burden of proof to be upon the prosecution, to prove that the images were not created solely on a computer. Child pornography is worse though, because you are talking about children being exploited.

Anyways, here are some links to the ACLU website supporting their pronography stance.

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11736&c=252
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=10364&c=252

overdu you are doing more for the left then I ever could...lets se lets force filters on schools that don't block porn but do blok sex ed sites, antigun sites, and the DNC website..that will solve things.

Just because you fell that some idea has no place in society dosn't mena your right...see in this country we have something called freedom, we can say and do things you don't like, thats the nature of the beast we call democracy, if you don't like it may i sugest cuba, or perhaps some african nation.

lol, that's what he's doing... voicing an opinion. ;) **** I think back when I was in school... put Hustler on the Magazine racks. Would have loved that. Guns and Ammo would have been nice too. KKK and Nazi newsletter, BDSM magazines... Whould have made study hall more fun, that's for sure. I think the ACLU is worried they will be blocked, that's all.

By the blocking software being pushed they where blocked that was the problem, a lot of the censorship software blocks political sites as objectional (gun control sites, safe sex sites, sites with info on aids where also blocked)...this is a problem in an educational enviroment..perhaps haveing the computers in view and makeing the librarians/aids/and teachers do there job would be a better option insted of trying to censor the net...this is even worse when forced on public libraries.

Oh and road I have no problem with him voiceing his opinion, itll will send more moderates streaming to the left...my problewm is when he tries t oforce his morals on every one else, again in this country we have things like freedom, innocent untill proven guilty in a court of law.,..again perhpas the saudies or the talaban have a goverment more to your likeing

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
[B]overdu you are doing more for the left then I ever could...lets se lets force filters on schools that don't block porn but do blok sex ed sites, antigun sites, and the DNC website..that will solve things.

---

That's because the approach to solving the problem was based upon the incorrect assumption that you can place a filter on content and still be selective enough to make the product work as intended. The real solution to filtering is to use a white list, where a website admin would have to submit thier site to a committee, and the committee would review the applicability and appropriateness of the site for children. As for blocking the DNC website...hmmmm. J/K

Quote:

---

Just because you fell that some idea has no place in society dosn't mena your right...see in this country we have something called freedom, we can say and do things you don't like, thats the nature of the beast we call democracy, if you don't like it may i sugest cuba, or perhaps some african nation.

---

I believe in Democracy. I love my country. I respect it's leaders. However I do not believe that pornography has a place in our public school system or in our public library systems. If you desire access to pornography you should go purchase your magazine or movie and view it in the privacy of your own home, not watch it online in a publicly accessible area where minors are likely to be present. We have laws governing the public display of nudity that were developed to protect children. These same laws are applicable to the public library system whether you are talking about an adult magazine or an adult website. If I were to walk into a public library with one of my children and encountered a situation, where my child observed pornography being viewed by an adult or child, you can bet your rosy red buttons that the County would be looking at a lawsuit. Understand that in general I think that lawsuits are bad, however occasionally they are used for just causes. ("Just" being a very interpretive word of course.)

Let me try to state this in a way that you can better relate: Democrats go ape-wild when any mention of Christian oriented prayer is suggested in the public school system, the public library system, the opening proceedings for public bodies of government, and the list will go on. If I can't conduct a prayer session in any of these places, because it will enforce my religion on you, then why are you allowed to force your views of Pagan Worship upon me. In my interpretation this should be a separation of church and state for both sides. Or wait, what if I claim that Christrianity is no longer a religion, but rather Christianity is a set of alternative worldly views. Can I now pray out loud in public places because I will be praying to my inner Christian instead of a Superior Being. The left has done an extremely great job of convincing themselves that pornography is a choice, when pornorgaphy is really worshiping the sins of the flesh, and is supporting numerous agenda's that the Bible identifies as belonging to Satan. Think of it as a tit-for-a-tat.

nothing wrong with STUDENT run and organized prayer inside a school or library..nor am i saying allow kids to surf porn ata school, just pointing out that the filters are broken to the point of unuseability (unless you area a far right nut who thinkis blocking all sites that don't agree with you is a good thing)

You mean like the ACLU bballad? :D

Overdue, just use keywords like "Progressive worship" :cool:

I spent alot of time in Amsterdam. All this talk of porn in school made me think of it. Most people on the US right, and even left, would drop dead at the site of a huge dildo sticking out of a girls ass on a 4 foot poster, as it's displayed in a store window for all to see. Shame, other than that it's one of the most lovely places on earth. Unlike the ACLU, I think community school boards should be able to have some control on the content of the internet at a local level. If I ever have kids I am ****ing putting them in a private school so I can do what the hell I want and keep the Left, the communists, the ACLU, the Nazis, the Right, the racists, junkies the biggots and everyone else shoveling bullshit the **** out of my kids education. Love that word sometimes. Come to think of it the ACLU is against that voucher stuff and home shooling. Or am I just dreaming that up?

Quote:

---

Come to think of it the ACLU is against that voucher stuff and home shooling. Or am I just dreaming that up?

---

Yup! You're right!
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l052101a.html
http://www.aclutx.org/pubed/positionpapers/vouchers.htm
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2004/Apri...herSchemes.htm

This is a great link, if you can read it and separate the agenda from the issue.
http://www.aclu-or.org/legislature/1...eg_update.html