1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did we miss this earlier?

Discussion in 'Political Debates' started by Pah, Aug 21, 2006.

  1. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    The ACLU will defend a church if the church helps it promote its agenda. The ACLU had no problem representing the UU's when they sued for the right to protest against the LDS church on LDS church property.
     
  2. Mathematician

    Mathematician Reason, and reason again

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,722
    Ratings:
    +612
    What exactly is the ACLU's agenda, besides from protecting the civil liberties of both sides, and everywhere else in between? I've listened to people call the ACLU an atheist organization for years, and yet here it is protecting the rights of one of the most whackiest conservative churches out there, when other people won't.

    Disgracing someone doesn't mean you get your freedom taken away. Those comparisons don't really add up, either. In both cases you're intentionally endangering the public. Here they are trying to make a point. Any "conflict" that comes from their protests is avoidable.

    Plus, we're also talking about the right to assemble, and a lot of other freedoms, not just free speech. Even radicals deserve their rights.
     
  3. nutshell

    nutshell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    7,140
    Ratings:
    +672
    Why does the ACLU oppose Christmas?




    They're just jealous that they can't find three wise men and a virgin among their own ranks!!!




    hahahaha




    kidding aside, I was actually looking at possible internship opportunities with the ACLU...I thought it might be a good way to widen my view of things, but I don't want to end up with a career there so I probably won't pursue it.
     
  4. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    The reason that we have laws is because there are some things that we shouldn't have "the right" to do. I get so sick of people talking about rights without any mention of responsibility that I feel like my head will explode.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Booko

    Booko Deviled Hen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    18,523
    Ratings:
    +1,380
  6. Booko

    Booko Deviled Hen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    18,523
    Ratings:
    +1,380
    I could always buy another motorcycle, come by and pick you up, and we could go "greet" them. Wear your wings. :D

    It might just scare them enough to get them to run away. ;)
     
  7. Jaymes

    Jaymes The cake is a lie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,759
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Because you don't have that right. Check out Brandenburg v. Ohio.
     
  8. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    I was thinking that a funeral itself was the option. Cremation is certainly an option. Missing a chance to pay last respects and provide closure is opportunity lost. But the Constitution, for example, does not grant that there is a right to be able to take all opportunities presented. It does also not grant "right" status to several other things long held in private tradition. I'm not against funerals but only comparing them to rights of a human being. The "right", if there was one, would have to belong to the deceased.

    I'm not advocating that an obnoxious display of hatred be accepted but that is must be fought by means other than law.


    I agree.


    I think I agree with this also but I'm not sure what you mean.
    Yes, it is a balance of rights (not the right of abortion but the right to do one's business where one chooses).

    Falwell (did I spell it right this time?) disrupts a lot of people's private life. So, I'd say disruption is not a differing point. A difference in my mind is that Falwell hides his hatred under the sheep's clothing of civil religious expression - hence why I said "much milder" for him.
     
  9. jonny

    jonny Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    6,260
    Ratings:
    +639
    And based on the laws that were passed the protestors don't have the right to disrupt these funerals. The ACLU is trying to get the law changed. Pathetic cause to take up if you ask me.

    There are times when speech is limited. This should be one of those instances.
     
  10. Booko

    Booko Deviled Hen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    18,523
    Ratings:
    +1,380


    I don't see how. You have a stiff, and you have to do something with it, you know?

    And no, cremation is not necessarily an option. Cremation is prohibited in my religion, unless the law demands it. And why should cremation be forced on a grieving family because some nutjob wants to protest and the family wants to avoid them? Why should the family have to postpone the grieving process and have their memorial service in private?

    I'm sorry, but there's just no justice in that.


    No, but there's the bit about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hardly think that barging into a funeral with abusive language and cursing falls under the heading of "happiness" and the "liberty" of the grieving family to be about their business sure is taken away by such antics. And a funeral is the sort of "opportunity lost" that is qualitatively different than the "opportunity" of having to take less time to cross the street because some protestors are crowded there.

    I don't see why the right would only belong to the deceased person and would not also belong to close family members.

    Oh, I would be *really* surprised if you were arguing it was acceptable behaviour. It would be completely unlike you.



    The law has no qualms about herding those who want to protest gatherings of the powerful into pens far from where the powerful will hear their voices.

    And yet, we have qualms about keeping abusive fools away from a grieving family?

    If that's the law, then the law is indeed an ***. :eek: We need to reconsider our priorities.

    The powerful are not personally harmed by protestors (well, provided they're peaceful, obviously). I would argue that grieving families are indeed harmed by these protestors, yet someone wants to argue that they should be able to be not just within earshot, but "in your face"?

    Exactly. And that is why I would never support any effort to just shut down Phelps group from protesting at all. I just see no reason why a family's funeral service should be turned into a circus in order for them to have their say. They can just as well tell everyone how homosexuality got us into Iraq by protesting in front of a recruiting office. sheesh

    Nor, for that matter, do I see why anyone's religious service should be interrupted for any reason. It's not "freedom of religion" when you're trying to have a service and someone's making it impossible to do so.

    There are some things in our society that really should be considered "sacred" and funerals and worship services would top my list. If we cannot find a way to do this while preserving someone's right to free speech, then we have fallen farther than I had thought.

    How so? And what form does his disruption take? I don't think disrupting someone's life is a sufficient reason.

    Yes, well Christ did warn about wolves in sheep's clothing.
     
  11. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Now there might be a good defense for a "demonstaration free zone" at any religious service. Of course, security plays a role in demonstrations around political candidates that have Secret Service protection.. There is also the zone, blocks away from a convention that is set up for security reasons. I'm not saying it should be but it is conflicting rights and roles.
    Same-sex marriage
    :D
     
  12. drekmed

    drekmed Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Ratings:
    +26
    The ACLU is right in there attempt to protect the right to freedom of speech and to peaceably assemble. However, that is not necessarily what the people of Westburo Baptist Church are doing.
    If I'm not mistaken, there are laws against slanderous speach, and speach thats is inciting violence.
    What could possibly be done, is arrest any of the members of Westburo baptist that protest at funerals under these laws. It could be argued that because they travel outside their state and are targeting only certain types of funerals that they are attempting to incite violence with their words.
    They should still be allowed to assemble and may protest, but they cannot slander the family or attempt to incite violence.
     
Loading...