2.10.2008

He's Got To Be Smarter Than That


From a new book by Texas Gov. Rick Perry:...

"Whether it is protecting the rights of pornographers, molesters, perverts, terrorists, garden-variety thugs, or those merely hostile to a belief in God, the ACLU is there to provide aid and comfort, in additional to a well-funded legal arsenal," Perry writes.

42 comments:

wordkyle said...

And the incorrect part of that statement is what?

Anonymous said...

He left out that they also filed briefs in defense of Rush Limbaugh.

Anonymous said...

How can you argue with that?

the fake rick perry said...

Come on Barry, don't you know that the first amendment is only meant to protect pro-government white christians?

Anonymous said...

Well, maybe equal protection under the law? Maybe equal application of the law? Maybe the Biblical assertion by Jesus that if you do it to the least of these, you do it to me.?

I would sleep a whole lot better if I were certain that every Texan executed was "really, really, guilty" instead of railroaded by rogue DA, poor defense counsel.

No I don't care for some of their clinets,(wheter it be Limbaugh or Craig) but none of us are safe unless all of us are safe from big government.

The big boys pushed thru tort reform by highlighting all the crazy rewards passed out by juries, but in the process have fixed it so the little guy can't access the courts to seek redress.

So, oil producers are doing as they please regardless of what contracts, leases etc because they know the little guy can't protect himself.

If justice were not of function of wealth, there would be no need for the ACLU

Anonymous said...

"he has to be smarter than that."

based on what evidence?

based on the intelligence of the Texas electorate who has made him the longest serving governor in our history.

"we have to be smarter than that."

based on what evidence?

A Phil King can get elected multiple times........

"they have to be smarter than that"

watch and see

Anonymous said...

"......a fierce portrayal of what he calls indefensible efforts by the American Civil Liberties Union and liberal elites to turn the nation away from traditional values and faith in God......blah, blah".

Puke.

You neocon, evangelical, idiot red's (or Religicans, as MsCreep calls ya) just had eight years to fix this stuff, and look at what a mess you've made.

I'm lovin' me some some 6:35PM.

Oh, and STFU wordbile. Don't say a word either, jarlid....you twits.

Anonymous said...

I agree with wordkyle. Sounds like an apt description of the ACLU.

Anonymous said...

HEY ALL YOU IDIOTS!!!! In context, you would realize that Perry's remarks were a SLAM on the ACLU. It's no wonder that a guy whose only crime was having a computer with poor virus protection got ten years in prison in Wise County.

bigcatdaddy said...

I'll bet if any one of you was falsely accused of murder or any other serious crime you'd be crying for the ACLU to come to the rescue.

Which is why I'm a card carrying member.

P.S. - Watching the Grammy's and Beyonce is hot...hope you don't miss it Barry.

P.P.S. - Damn, Nelly Furtado is smokin' too!!!!

Anonymous said...

8:00
Duh! We got that!

Some of us appreciate what the ACLU does to protect our First Amendment rights.

You're the idiot.

wordkyle said...

7:31 - Since I'm blinded by your brilliance, I have to ask a question: What's a "neocon?" I may or may not be one...I definitely consider myself a Conservative. Is that different from a "neocon?"

BTW, I don't consider myself an "evangelical" either. (Depending, of course, on what your definition of that is.)

If the ACLU were actually about liberty, they would take as many First Amendment cases supporting the "Free Exercise Clause" as they do the "Establishment Clause." But they don't; their stance regarding religion is solely anti-Christian. (Any comment on that, counselor?)

Funny that in a discussion of the ACLU you should tell others to shut up, and also support MzChief's anti-Christian bigotry.

Isn't it ironic?

Jarhead said...

Neoconservatism defined:

"An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s. ~ from the American Heritage Dictionary (Neocon propaganda)

The Leftists use the word "neocon" as if it's an insult. Not really feeling insulted by that definition.

Anonymous said...

wordkyle is again seems to be a self-serving pontificator.

The ACLU is available to defend All who are denied their constitutional rights - whether minorities, the Klan, or others accused by the state. We all have the protection of the constitution but many don’t know how to effect it.

My understanding of neocons are those absolutist authoritarians who go far beyond the simple "conservative" philosophy of the Goldwater era. These folks are so convinced of their "righteousness" that they seem to believe that the law and constitution are just for "others."

I don't think I need to defend or define Mzchief's beliefs, but I'd suggest that she's against ANY religion being dominant in our government. If you'd like a theocracy, try modeling yourself on Iran, Saudi Arabia or even Pakistan. Islam considers religion and government to be the same thing. Is that what you really suggest for this country? I think and hope the ACLU will resist that vigorously.

M&M said...

From what I remember to have read, the ACLU's original intent was to be for the little guy, but in the last 10 to 20 years they have definitely been skewed in their thinking against God and Christianity and traditional thinking and they have been selective in the cases they take based on that bias.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what "anti-Christian" bigoted statements MzChief has made. As far as I could tell, his/her objections seem to be directed toward politically right-wing evangelicals. In any case, I should think some distinction might be drawn between not caring for the antics of Jerry Falwell and his ilk and being an "anti-Christian bigot". What I have noticed, however, are a number of racially bigoted statements on this site with no objection from those evident defenders of Christianity. Odd, that.

mzchief said...

Ladies and Gentlemen...

Ahem...

Wordkyle is just as WRONG this time when he claims I am "anti-Christian as he was EVERY other time he was informed that I am NOT "anti-Christian" I am AGAINST Governmental Institutionalized RELIGION. Hey, any person who cannot BELIEVE and show enough RESPECT to get someone's alias RIGHT after they have been informed COUNTLESS times that it is NOT "MzChief" but mzchief which is an adulteration of "mischief" cannot be expected to keep up with the truth/facts.

Wordkyle is either too stupid to learn FACTS when corrected or too much of an arrogant, pompous ass to admit when he is WRONG. Clearly, Wordkyle is NOT stupid. Please, also make up your own minds as to the moral fibre of a person who takes a random shot at someone who has not even so much as commented on the blog topic or to them in MONTHS.

Now you know why I no longer waste my time engaging in ANY type of debate with Wordkyle. However, he does PERFECTLY represent the RELIGICANS as to their arrogance toward the rights and beliefs of others. I have said it before, Wordkyle, Ann Coulter, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk are the BEST thing to happen to the Democrat party. It would be worth having a Democrat in the White House just to see the RELIGICANS have their arses handed to them. However, I actually like John McCain and think he will keep the RELIGICANS in check.

As for the ACLU. Be grateful there is a POWERFUL organization willing to make certain the Government does not trample over the rights of Americans, regardless of weather you agree with the American being defended.

Boys and Girls, battle on with Wordkyle if you must but remember, when you wrestle in the mud with a pig, the pig enjoys it and you get dirty. Ignore Wordkyle and like a FART he will dissipate and everyone will soon forget that he was ever around.

mzchief said...

typo repair kit

weather = whether


thank you text messager

Jarhead said...

mzchief,

I'll have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the ACLU and wordkyle...

...but your FART comment made me laugh...

gern blansten said...

Oh my goodness, where to start...

hey 7:31 p.m.: stfu wordKYLE and jarHEAD?!... you don't even want to hear their thoughts? That sounds like all you global warming alarmists that don't even want any questions asked about all the fear of global warming blah blah...


also 7:31, since you invoked "neocon" and "evangelical" in the same sentence (without probably having a clue of what EITHER of them are), then obviously you are as guilty of your own "righteous" thinking (actually, 9:20's word) as you accuse the conservatives. In your mind, ANYONE who calls themselves a Christian is a "right-wing nut", reading from the "Big Book of Myths and Fables" (Mzchief's definition of the Bible - just thought I'd bring that up since you're drinking her kool-aid).

In addition, Conservative Christians want marriage between a man and a woman, good morals from our leaders, teachers, babies not to be aborted, etc., while you want everyone to "live and let live." With that thinking, we'd all be speaking German right about now...

And before you drag some Bush slam into the conversation, wordkyle and others are on record as having said they are DISPLEASED with the performance of the president, particularly when it comes to spending our money, so don't even go there.

monkey said...

ummm...The ACLU...SUCKS!!!

wordkyle said...

9:20 - The ACLU may be "available" to protect the rights (Constitutional rights?) of everyone, but in actual practice they ignore one large part of the First Amendment with which they disagree. They are diligent at abrogating the free exercise of religion by a single group - Christians.

I enjoyed your definiton of "neocon." If that's what it is, then I'm against it too.

As for MzChief's anti-Christian bigotry: She singles out Christianity to ridicule and vilify. Anything remotely tinged by Christianity she immediately opposes, with the same actions; e.g., Conservative Republicans who oppose John McCain ("Religicans"??)

Other than abortion and gay marriage, Conservative Christians have not influenced major issue discussions that much. Unless, of course, the issue is morality, which seems to make Liberal Democrats very uncomfortable for some reason. Moral behavior is not limited to Christians; however, that group seems to be the only one that publicly supports moral behavior.

As for MzChief's personal attacks on me, I attribute them to her frustration at the fact that I refuse to be cowed by her. I give them little consideration, as I do any insults spoken by a bully and a bigot.

Anonymous said...

There must be a lot of Patriots that simply do not belive in Liberty and personal fredom, and think the Government and it's laws should do as it pleases. And it usually seems like the ones with the Right-Cono line of thought that do not like it.

Anonymous said...

9:55 here.
The level of discussion among these comments illustrates a lot of what I find unfortunate in current political interaction. It just seems kinda toxic to me. Are there no points on which conservatives and liberals might agree? I choose to believe that Wordkyle is a good person, beloved by many and with a reasoned intelligence. But I find his "take no prisoners" stance self-limiting. I just can't bring myself to view the world in such black/white terms while painting all liberals as a monolith of thought.

And mizchief (sorry. I'm one of those guilty of inadvertently capitalizing "Miz"): I can absolutely understand your disdain for the absolutes that some religious conservatives foist on the rest of us (and I think it scary too), but your anger, as expressed, might be counter-productive. Once you engage in name calling, whole segments of your audience will just shut down and stop listening.

Yeah, I know. Some of this is just about venting. James Carville and Ann Coulter might be entertaining for their respective groups and, gosh knows, they get twitters from the other kids in the class, but Mr. Carville's blinders-on-attack-dog stance just leaves me thinking he's one latte away from a ginormous meltdown. Ms. Coulter strikes me as rather like a petulant, disturbed child who's compulsive need to shock just finally becomes boring and off-putting. They may be fun for a short while, but I wouldn't want either of them baby-sitting my kids or giving a drunken toast at my wedding.

Anonymous said...

wordkyle, just when did the ACLU fail to support the free exercise clause? What is your basis for suggesting that the ACLU disagrees with the free exercise clause? I suspect that most of your complaint is that you see them choosing to support the establishment clause instead of the free exercise clause IN A PARTICULAR CASE. Please point out a few instances in the past decade in which the ACLU failed to support the free exercise clause...when it wasn't pitted against the establishment clause. Almost every recent court case regarding the free exercise clause revolves around weighing its application against the establishment clause. In most of those instances, the law or government-sponsored instituion was sued becasue people believed they were attempting to establish or at least benefit a particular religion. Where are these people unable to exercise their religion within the U.S.? Where are their cases? Which Christains that are trying to exercise their religion aren't getting supported?

Since almost every elected state and national official calls himself/herself a Christian, it's pretty clear that the Christians are getting to make their points and make the laws. As many others have pointed out, the ACLU has roots in supporting the little guy. Since our government (state and local) is controlled by Christians, it's hard to view Christians as the little guy.

If you, like so many, claim as your example "prayer in school", please note that many of the people demanding to put prayer back in school seem to forget that the public school system is funded by our tax dollars, legally linking it to our government. The ACLU takes the position that that is state-sponsored religion. These people should ask themselves whether they would support prayer in school if the teachers had their children kneel on the floor, face east, and pray an Islamic prayer.

gern blansten said...

anon 8:36:

when reading your post, it made me think that you answered your own question. Prayer in school is one of those ACLU-hated things - and that's NOT okay!
At least here in the southern part of the country, ther vast, vast majority of the religious people proclaim to be Christians. Perhaps it's just a regional thing, but it seems most of the disdain for Christianity comes from the northeastern part of the country - at least over the past few years. Then, the more those people move into this area, THEN it becomes a bigger deal.
And while I am a Christian and am offended that the ACLU wants to take ALL religion out of schools, I would fight for the right for those who don't agree with me to have the freedom to choose. They paint with a broad brush when it comes to Christianity.

Just another observation: It seems that the media ALWAYS takes a dim view of Christianity (always seemingly called "right-wing" or "nuts" {inferred}. When it comes to other religions, however, they are looked upon with respect, as if they are "actually" more moral than Christians or something.

Oh, and by the way, THANK YOU for making a point without resorting to name-calling, spewing, etc. It's OK for people to disagree on issues.

Anonymous said...

gern, thanks for the response and noticing that I (8:36) tried to keep it civil. I disagree with your characterization that the ACLU hates prayer in school. I think they would go to the mat for the math student that wants to pray before his test.

On the other hand, when the school sponsors the prayer the ACLU sees that as government sponsored. I happen to agree. You can't tell me that when a teacher gets the class of 2nd graders together for a prayer he/she's not promoting Christianity above all other religions. Like I say, let a teacher get the 2nd graders together for an Islamic prayer and see the parents storm the school. In fact, I suspect that you'd have parents storm the school if you had that teacher encouraging the students to recite the rosary.

As you say, the problems began when we became less homogenous. I don't see that becoming less of an issue in the future. Perhaps it's just a problem we should expect with our growth. Maybe the ACLU already fought these battles in the Northeast, I don't know.

wordkyle said...

no-name 8:36 - Examples of the ACLU opposing free religious expression:

1) The ACLU filed a suit against Catholic Charities, demanding that the organization provide contraception coverage in any group prescription-drug program offered to its employees.

Since the teachings of the Catholic Church prohibit the use of such contraceptives, the ACLU was demanding that the state force the group to violate the tenets of its founding faith.

2) The ACLU opposed a Virginia law implementing a minute of silence at the start of each school day because the law "encouraged students to pray." A minute of silence.

8:32 - Thanks for the even tone.
On this board I try to use substance to debate issues and philosophies and I try not to resort to namecalling and thoughtless vilification. Having said that, I will respond in kind to the tone or method someone uses in response to my posts. I have no intention of being a punching bag for someone who has run out of arguments.

Too many times people who I consider on the "right" side of an argument have been shouted down by thsoe who won't tolerate honest discussion. Burke's adage on the triumph of evil is particularly apt here.

Anonymous said...

Wordbile, You called mzchief a bigot and she hadn't even commented on the blog. Even after mzchief said she isn't anti-Christian she is against the the government institutionalizing religion you still said she was an anti-Christian bigot.

You're a liar who can't remember your own lies long enough to keep your story straight on one blog. You're one of those people who think just because you say something it makes it so and everyone else is too stupid to know you're telling a lie.

Anonymous said...

wordkyle, your example of the Catholic Charities case as a failure of the ACLU to support free exercise does not comport with the facts. The law in question in that case specifically exempted religious organizations, such as churches. However, if an organization could not qualify and was only religiously affiliated (e.g. charities & hospitals) they were not exempt from the law. Additionally, since each employee had the opportunity to make his/her own health care decisions, no individual was deprived of the ability to make their own decision. Charities and similar organizations however, may receive government funds and other secular benefits. So, again we have the establishment clause becoming part of this case as well. BTW, there is no way to logically argue that the Catholic Church needed the help of the ACLU to fund their legal position. While the lowly employees of the charities had no other recourse. I belive that the ACLU only filed an amicus brief and the State of New York who passed the law sought its enforcement.

Similarly, the Virginia law requiring a moment of silence may be interpreted to run afoul of the establishment clause as well. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an Alabama law calling for a moment of silence in public schools violated the principle that government must be neutral toward religion. The justices said the history of that law made it clear that it was designed to encourage students to pray. While I personally won't quibble with the moment of silence, if our U.S. Supreme Court thought it was a violation just 20 years ago, it's a closer call than you may think. But, what is clear is that the ACLU's position wasn't anti-free exercise...but anti-establishment.

Denney Crane said...

11:23 AM

I think you're all wrong on your perception of the 2 commentors you seek to defend or defame.

Sorry, but mz is a bigot. I'm not sure she's an anti-christian bigot, but the shoe seems to fit. How do I know? Because it takes one to know one... get real, who in their right mind tolerates people they perceive as an idiot?

Futhermore, mz is not a liar, but neither is WK. They both have a passion for their opinions based on information that has shaped their character.

Although I don't always agree with them, I fervently respect their zeal for their beliefs. As long as we are all willing to admit when we are wrong and be willing to change our position; we are actually REASONABLE people...but I don't want anyone to think I'm reasonable, I like blaming it on the mad cow...

...and then sometimes a good heated discussion is like foreplay...it's very stimulating and pleasurable.

but I could be wrong.

Denney Bigot Crane

wordkyle said...

12:03 - In both of the cases, the ACLU's stance was against a so-called "establishment" of religion, even though in each case no belief system was imposed. They used the establishment argument to quash expression of religious beliefs, in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

Incidentally, the First Amendment's prohibitions on religion apply only to Congress and the passing of laws. The ACLU does not include the actual wording of the First Amendment on their website. Instead, they misinterpret it to "keep religion out of government."

The Supreme Court's hostility to religion is recent. It stems from Everson v. Board of Education (1947). In his opinion, Justice Black used broad language to systematically argue for the complete removal of any religion from governmental discourse.

Prior to that ruling, religion was considered an integral part of the American system. In 1952, Justice Douglas wrote: “We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being….We cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

The ACLU obviously disagrees.

mzchief said...

Denny Crane...
You assume MUCH with FEW facts. Since I live in the United States, the VAST majority of my dearest friends claim to be Christians. My mother was a DEVOUTE Jew. My father was a life long DEVOUTE Catholic and a card carrying member of the Nights of Columbus for the ENTIRITY of his adult life. My beloved son has embraced his Jewish heritage and the Jewish faith. Though my 85 year old, life long Christian Science mother-in-law has three children I am the person she has appointed to ASSURE no one decides she should be forced to endure ANY medical procedure should she, at any time, fall ill. Currently, she is blind due to cataracts and refuses to have her eyes repaired. Of course I think her decision to be blind is REDICULOUS. However, I will continue to protect her from her two daughters who want to FORCE her to have her eyes repaired. I will continue to RESPECT her RIGHT to practice her feather plucking insane religion and RESPECT her for doing so. My mother-in-law has NEVER once attempted to foist HER religion or beliefs on me or my son just as I would NEVER attempt to impose my belief that the "Big Book of Myths and Fables" is NOTHING but a compilation of TALES. My mother-in-law is FUILLY aware of my opinion of "The Big Book of Myths and Fables."

I have said this before, I do NOT care what means people CHOOSE to PERSONALLY connect with God but I WILL hiss and spit to keep them from FORCING me to swallow their hogwash and imposing their "religion/morals/ethics" upon me ESPECIALLY if they attempt to enlist the assistance of the United States Government.

YOU are a self proclaimed BIGOT. I STRONGLY refute your allegation that I am one with you in YOUR bigotry. Just because you see one when you look in the mirror does NOT mean EVERYONE you see as like you is like you. Actually, I think this is exactly what 11:23 meant, just because you say something is true does NOT make it the truth.

Anonymous said...

wordkyle, integral...possibly, but that doesn't mean intertwined the way you indicate until 1952. I will let the words of Thomas Jefferson from New Years Day in 1802, speak for themselves.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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 & State.”

I'm no historian, but I'm fairly sure that 1802 comes well before 1952 and that Jefferson guy was more than a bit player in writing the Constitution.

Jarhead said...

The "Nights" of Columbus? Are they similar to the Nights Templar? Or are they more like the Boogie Knights?

Sorry, mzchief, I just couldn't resist.

No spell check could have caught that one...

;)

wordkyle said...

2:14 - Thomas Jefferson attended religious services in the Capitol building (which at last glance was government-owned.) Also in attendance was James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." They clearly saw no problem with intermingling government and religion.

Given that these two men knew what they were doing, when they wrote the First Amendment, saying "Congress shall pass no law..." then they meant precisely what they said. To date there has been no effort by Congress to pass a law establishing religion.

The reference to recent Supreme Court rulings was to show how modern the Supreme Court's hostility to religion is.

mzchief said...

Jarhead...
THANKS!

That is what happens when I ATTEMPT to multi-task while talking aka begging and pleading in German on the telephone to a company in the Ukraine about having an Antonov-124 pick up TONS & TONS of compressors, dryers, skids, towers, vessels, flanges, valves and piping and taking it to Kuwait NEXT month.
*BLuSH*

Denney Crane said...

"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, OR identities differing from his or her own."

Wikipedia

just the facts...

Anonymous said...

Sweet Jesus, MZ. What a screwed up family yours must be? Jews, Christian Scientists, and atheists---wow! And you the daughter-in-law calling all the shots? BTW, if that were my mother and you were only the daughter-in-law, you'd have a permanent size 12 boot print on your backside!

mzchief said...

To anonymous 4:21...
There are NO atheists in MY family. Obviously, I am the RIGHT one for my mother-in-law to have selected because I am the one to have RESPECTED her wishes. The reason she did not select my husband is because of his frequent travel to far flung locations. Actually, my family is EXTREMLY close. We actually take holidays together and FREQUENTLY share holidays. Unlike you and your size 12 boot, MY family does not resort to violence or disrespectful actions against each other.

Anonymous said...

Why can't people who want to promote their religion just do it in their own houses or in their own churches? Why must they bring it into our public spaces where folks of various other religions - or those with no religion at all - have to be subjected to their version of the "truth?" Immerse yourself in your religion, just leave the rest of us alone - please.

monkey said...

Well boys and girls...from all of this back and forth bickering and bitching; what have we learned? Nothing...The lines are clearly drawn and there is increasingly only a left or right side. We are divided. Not even the attacks of 9-11 can unite us for longer than a year or two. They are a distant memory. One of several infamous dates that will soon be as obscure to the youth of this nation as Pearl Harbor or D-Day. There is only shame in this. There is no value in debating the invincibly ignorant from either side. Ignorance, it seems, is the only thing that we have an abundance of.