response 348 of 526:

Mar 3 21:00 UTC 2006

re #335 I view it as a threat because one "private catholic town" could become
ten thousand "private catholic towns"  It would be rich right wingers try to
buy their way around the Constitutional separation of church and state.  You
have to draw a line somewhere.  

response 350 of 526:

Mar 3 21:11 UTC 2006

Wow Richard.  There you go again.  You know, the more you rant and rave and
obfuscate, the more seriously I look at Jep (who I know, like and personally
disagree with quiet a bit) and the less seriously I look at you (who I don't
know, I somewhat like, and I agree with nearly 85% of the time).  

Look, take this as friendly advice.  Learn to argue without throwing shit in
the fan.  All you are doing is getting it on yourself.

Oh, and the Church of LDS doesn't endorse polygamy by any stretch of the
imagination at this time.  

response 352 of 526:

Mar 3 21:17 UTC 2006

The *actual* point of the events explained #349 is that Congress had to make
the Church of LDS sign the agreement; "Congress made them sign a deal
eliminating X to become a state" doesn't imply that "X would have been/is
unconstitutional", but if anything the opposite.

response 354 of 526:

Mar 3 21:23 UTC 2006

Monaghan doesn't want to live in the United States.  He wants his own kingdom
where he can make his own laws.  Is he any different than the Rev. Jim Jones
and his cult back in the 70's?  The only difference is Jones didn't have
enough money to buy his own town in Florida so he went to Guyana to form
"Jonestown"

response 356 of 526:

Mar 3 21:28 UTC 2006

I think there may be some differences between Tom Monaghan and Reverend 
Jim Jones of Kool-aid fame.

response 358 of 526:

Mar 3 21:33 UTC 2006

re #355 huh?

re #356 Both Monaghan and Jones wanted to form their own towns so their
"followers" could follow laws dictated by their personal beliefs, and not
dictated by the laws of the United States.  Today its a good catholic who
wants to set up a "private town", tomorrow it will be the next Jim Jones. In
these things you want to prevent them before they start, because once
precedent is set, it becomes that much harder to stop the wrong guy from being
the next guy to try the same thing.  

response 360 of 526:

Mar 3 21:34 UTC 2006

<richard snuck in ahead of my response to jep>

response 362 of 526:

Mar 3 22:04 UTC 2006

re resp:360: I think the ACLU is a heavily politically biased group.  
I've said so many times, so I expect that part doesn't come as any 
surprise to anyone here.

I expect the ACLU to oppose conservative values and positions.  When 
they oppose a novel venture by Tom Monaghan, it is what I expect, 
because he is conservative and pretty prominent.  When they do so, it 
reinforces my view that they're politically motivated to support left-
leaning causes.

When the ACLU takes up causes such as Nazis, KKK, etc., I believe it is 
more to emphasize in people's minds that there are people like that, 
who are generally described as conservatives, than out of any concern 
for anyone's rights.

Their support for Rush Limbaugh was:
1) Designed to embarrass Limbaugh, beause he is a prominent conservative
2) Lucrative for the ACLU
3) Consistent with a liberal position regarding illegal use of drugs

But no doubt about it, I very deeply distrust the ACLU.  I very rarely 
find myself in agreement with any of their positions or actions.  When 
I do find myself agreeing with the ACLU on something, I evaluate 
whether I am really on the right side.  Currently I agree with their 
position regarding the president's wiretap policy without court 
supervision, but I can't think of anything else.

response 364 of 526:

Mar 3 22:32 UTC 2006

re #363 I think the case was "Cyberspace Communications v Engler", with Grex
as lead plaintiff in case entirely handled and paid for by the ACLU.

response 366 of 526:

Mar 3 23:35 UTC 2006

Jep says "I expect the ACLU to oppose conservative values and positions.",
but in fact the ACLU only opposes *infringements on the Bill of Rights*. Are
we to conclude that jep also opposes parts of the Bill of Rights? Notice how
he completely skews the meaning of their actions by suggesting:

"When the ACLU takes up causes such as Nazis, KKK, etc., I believe it is 
 more to emphasize in people's minds that there are people like that, 
 who are generally described as conservatives, than out of any concern 
 for anyone's rights."

What is the evidence, Jep, that it is NOT "out of concern for anyone's
rights"? What would an organization concerned with civil rights have to do
not to get your condemnation? Ignore the civil rights of people you don't 
like?

response 368 of 526:

Mar 4 00:29 UTC 2006

Re resp:335: I don't know about this.  A part of me thinks, "Okay, if   
they want to build a Catholic-only enclave, that's their right."  But I   
think I'd feel differently if someone decided to built a town only for   
whites, or only for men, or only for tall people.  And then I realized   
that there's no reason I should feel more charitable about the idea   
just because it's based around a religion instead of some other "us vs.   
them" distinction.   
   
Is it illegal?  Maybe not.  Is it right?  I don't think so.  But one of   
my biggest problems with organized religion is how exclusionary it is,   
and that's one of the reasons I stopped going to church.   
   
   
Re resp:362: So every time you see the ACLU take a position you   
disagree with, you use it to confirm your preexisting bias about them.    
Every time they take a position you don't have a problem with, you   
regard it as some kind of plot.   
   
I hope you realize that this is not a way to make any kind of rational   
decision about something.  It's pretty clear that you've started with a   
stereotype about the ACLU's motives, and are only interested in   
evidence that supports that stereotype -- or that you can twist around   
in your mind to somehow support it, like assuming they're only   
supporting Rush to embarrass him, or only defending the KKK to somehow   
try to link them to conservatives(!) and draw attention to them.   
   
I don't really expect you to ever be an ACLU member.  You clearly have 
different views than they do, and that's fine.  I'd like you to 
consider, though, that most of the people involved with the ACLU are 
doing what they do out of genuine conviction, not because they're 
trying to stick it to one particular political party.  Even when they 
do things I'm not thrilled with I can at least see the principle 
they're trying to uphold. 
 
The politics of the last few years has made a lot of odd bedfellows.  
When a conservative group who I normally oppose happens to see a 
situation where its interests align with mine, and supports something 
that I favor as well, I'm grateful for the help.  I don't regard them 
with suspicion and try to figure out what sneaky trick they're trying 
to pull. 

response 370 of 526:

Mar 4 15:50 UTC 2006

wow richard came up with the jonestown angle before i could.



anyhoo i can't wait for tom to get his little cult settled in 
there...a few scenarios:

1: a high rate of venereal disease

2: lotsa pregnant 14 year olds

3: "yes, we realize that you're a good catholic but 
    you're from haiti and all y'all have the aids
    so git movin, sambo."

response 372 of 526:

Mar 4 17:14 UTC 2006

Probably in their own special packaging...