O'Reilly's Most Ridiulous Item of the Day (yesterday) [san fran and free speech]

O'Really?

Who is this guy? O'Reilly is a publisher.

Just remember, liberals only want to protect free speech when they agree with what is being said. Other than that they could care less if anyones rights are violated. Just ask the ACLU.

O'Reilly is hardly the person to be talking about free speech, after what he does to guests on his show.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0318-11.htm

The guy's an idiot.

.

FWIW, O'Reilly did say that it was downtown San Francisco (IIRC) that was affected.

.

Or ask me. The ACLU defends everyone's free speech rights--even those of neo-nazis and anti-abortionists.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.

O'Rielley gets demonized for being conservative, when if you read his book, The Spin Zone, you'll find his views range all over the map. I disagree with him on some issues and agree with him on others and I am a left wing nut.

Bill is a rational guy and I'm sure there is a good reason he cut off that guy's mike. I dunno, I might be wrong.

That typo cracked me up.

O'Rielly: now in economy and demon-size!

I fixed it but that was funny.

.... except Christians and Patriotic Americans.

Come back when you know what you're talking about.

actually, try the link to the left on the page you cite and click on "churches and religious orgs." and you'll see they do in fact represent christians, on issues of discrimination.
where they do NOT represent them is on issues they deem to be a violation of separation of church and state.
this seems a very reasonable distinction.

(resists urge to say "come back when YOU know...yadda yadda yadda)

...umm, you might want to read it yourself. The ACLJ represents Christians almost exclusively, but we were discussing the ACLU.

Regarding your comment about separation of church and state, nonsuch claimed in an earlier post that the ACLU represents EVERYONE'S free speech rights, so no, it is not a reasonable distinction in this case.

I stand corrected, in part. However, I still contend its a reasonable distinction, regardless of who makes it.

further, I question whether the state honoring one religion over another is "free speech".
Unless you're willing to have all religions have the same access to government buildings, etc, then you have discriminated against at least some of them.

You know...there is no such thing as "Separate of Church and State". Its not in the constitution. Or any founding document. Go read em.

The government isn't supposed to ESTABLISH religion. But its free to pay for as much of it as it wants, as long as its doing so with the majority of the people's consent.

SO if you have a town of 10,000 people, all who believe in one religion (any one), that town is FREE (wow, there's that word again) to have the local government have some sort of religious event or action, like prayer - as long as the PEOPLE (wow again, like we make any difference?) support it.

I respectfully disagree.

Um. So it could "pay" for as "much of it as it wants" without "ESTABLISHING" it? I don't think I'm the one who needs to do the reading here.

The government doesn't establish... but it must approve.

Remember, if the government doesn't approve of a religion, regardless of how many members, how widespread in the world.. it's a cult. And that's illegal.

Howzat again?

Once more, but with sanity this time.

Duhhrr ...

Those cases both involved governmental institutions imposing religious speech inappropriately in a public setting. There is nothing in either of those cases saying an individual or private organization couldn't chant "God bless America" til their lungs gave out, or spray-paint the 10 Commandments on the hoods of their cars. That's not enough for some people, though; they feel entitled to have public institutions reflect what they believe as individuals. It don't work that way.

Nice effort, though.

(Oh, BTW, nice try also at muddying the debate by labeling 'God bless America' patriotic rather than religious speech ... patriotism does not require a belief in the Judeo-Christian Big Man in the Sky, despite what Bush the Elder thinks.)

Cults are illegal? Since when?

Don't forget NAMBLA.

It only says Congress shall pass no law. But people with their own agendas have tried to distort it and tries to put such ties on ANYTHING that has to do with the Government.

Some wackos even claim Bush doesn't have the right to mention God, or prayer in his speeches. It's simple not true.

Again, it was written to effect congress. So that no government could make a Nation Wide religion like England did. That is why that was written.

Not so we couldn't mention religion, or such.

Funny, they used to teach kids to read in school via the Bible way back when. Seems no one thought it was unconstitutional then.. why is it suddenly now? I mean they lived in the time such thing was written up.

It's all distortion of the truth.

Not that I am not surprised.

Obviously the courts disagreed.

Re-read the constitution or if you're too lazy, zimphire's explanation above.

Nevertheless, at least we can now see that your original point about the ACLU defending everyone's right to free speech was clearly wrong.

I find these guys repugnant. Pedofiles trying to legalize their sick and twisted longings. To think my membership dues in the ACLU went to defend these creeps makes me want to vomit.

RE separation of church and state:

Just so we know the text we are arguing;



The "Prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the sticking point. By allowing one religion (i.e Christianity) the right to be expressed without alternative expression (i.e In God we Trust; One nation, under God; etc.) it has been argued that this is an implicit prohibition on the expression of alternate views. Gets even stickier when we talk about "prayer" in school as it implicitly prohibits the expression of other views.

These the arguements, at least. For commentary, look here

What the hell?
I guess I will respond in the only way that is appropriate to the absurd statement above:
If you got nothing of value, then stfu, assbag.
[whine] "liberals only want to protect the free speech if they agree with what is..."[/whine]. Jeebus, but you and your ilk give conservatism a bad name.

This message brough to you by the Anti Ignoramus Board- fighting rash, ugly and moronic genralizations wherever they may be found... I guess I'll be spending a lot of time in the politico forum.

LOVE your source. Come back when you have achieved balance, grasshopper.
Lots of lovely meat and twists and turns in that case- like that ole church and state lint that just gets EVERYWHERE, don't it? I see you don't agree with that sentiment. Would you like the ACLU to clam up, then?

Hm. No specific definition of "Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" either, and yet, I think we can all agree as to the SPIRIT of what the pricipals are.
HAVING a separation ensures the freedom to practice as one wishes. I would think that would be a GOOD thing... but as the CPA so deftly points out, it is only a good thing if you agree.

Back to the topic. Separation of Church and State is not found in any of the pertinent documents.
Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. Separationists take this language from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he argued that the Constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." But separationists have never taken the phrase as anything more than a handy (if historically significant) summary of the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Separationist scholar Leo Pfeffer notes:

"No magic attaches to a particular verbalization of an underlying concept. The concept at issue here is more accurately expressed in Madison's phrase 'separation between Religion and Government,' or in the popular maxim that 'religion is a private matter.'" (Church, State, and Freedom)




Second, accommodationists don't apply this argument consistently. Pfeffer again:

"The phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles"

Other documents... well, I'd consider the Constitution to be a "Founding Document", as well as the Federalist Papers:
In the unamended constitution the government was given no authority in matters of religion: no authority to aid (promote, help, etc) or hinder religion. Matters of religion were off limits to the government, but the drafters of the Constitution were hard pressed to convince the state ratifying conventions of the built-in constitutional safeguards. Because some felt that clauses such as the Constitution's "elastic clause" might enable a future Congress to circumvent the "no power" over religion directive, Madison drafted and submitted the additional constitutional constraints that eventually became the religious clauses of the our 1st Amendment. See the Federalist Papers, # 84.

(forgive the many edits: I have REAMS of this stuff on my hard drive)

Letter from George Washington responding to a question concerning the lack of mention and or requirements as to religion and Christianity in the Constitution:

October, 1789

To the Ministers and Ruling Elders delegated to represent the churches in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, which compose the First Presbytery of the Eastward.


The tribute of thanksgiving which you offer to the gracious Father of lights, for his inspiration of our public councils with wisdom and firmness to complete the national Constitution, is worthy of men who, devoted to the pious purposes of religion, desire their accomplishment by such means as advance the temporal happiness of mankind. And here, I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe, that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little Political attention. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna Charta of our country.



To the guidance of the ministers of the gospel this important object is, perhaps, more properly committed. It will be your care to instruct the ignorant, to reclaim the devious; and in the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may expect confidently, the advancement of true religion and the completion of happiness. I pray the munificent rewarder of every virtue, that your agency in this good work may receive its compensation here and hereafter.





George Washington.

I got more. Want it?