Two years of procrastination. Not one.

Oh well. I’m sure you haven’t lost any traffic for it. Seriously.

It’s been a procrastinatory year.

I maintain my views on the ACLU and the Christmas war thing.

I also believe in the left-wing media bias (re politics and culture) and the ultra-capitalist there-has-to-be-an-individual-icon media bias (re sports) and that none of this a conspiracy…. so much as a massive(ly annoying) coincidence.

I’m just glad I only had to recall the ACLU discussion for search purposes to find the html question I asked (which is far more relevant).

Of course, I told myself I’d roll Polite Dissent, Suspension of Disbelief, and about three or even four other blogs that have yet to go on the list, thanks to my procrastination…. grrrr. ah well.

K<sup>2</sup>R

Which shows up as “K2″ [Edit: Well, it would if the comment form didn't strip it out. Grrr.]

P.S. Thanks for the blogroll nod!

sorry, off-topic

It’d be a coincidence that Salon is being straightforward and the writer’s bias is not what I would normally suspect it to be. It could be perfectly innocous and it likely is. It’s just like my buddy Josh Elder defending the Catholic church! He’s a Catholic! Writer John Derbyshire defends the Episcopal church but he is an emigrated Anglican himself. It’s Ted Nugent defending the NRA and Jonah Goldberg defending the Conservative Movement and Dick Cheney defending Neo-Cons! So yeah, even when they’re right (or wrong) they’ve chosen a side.

Now, I do believe that over the pasty fifty or sixty or perhaps 80 years (in case I have miscounted) that there has been a movement, somewhat not totally malicious in nature, to genericize Christianity and Christmas, and not neccessarily in that order. Who’s at fault for that? I don’t know. Serious research is for guys without tests on December 9th.

1st Amendment: freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly.
2nd Amendment: right to bear arms.

As to the guarantee that the ACLU will defend your civil rights? The likelihood they’ll defend you depends on whether or not they agree your civil rights are being infringed, and that, again, is a matter of political bias.

For example, Christianity states that the Christian God is the only true God. Some Christians actually believe that if the government treats all religions as equal, it is directly contradicting this belief and therefore attacking Christianity (nevermind that almost every religion states that its own deities and doctrines are the only valid ones, so an egalitarian approach to all religions by the government does no more harm to Christians than to anyone else). Those Christians would say that any government action that fails to advance Christian interests is an attack on their 1st Amendment rights. [edit: typo corrected]

The ACLU would disagree, citing the 1st Amendment as the basis for the government actions in question.

Some Christians believe that the establishment clause is intended to prevent any one sect of Christianity from dominating other sects. The ACLU would argue that the establishment clause is intended to prevent the government from granting any small degree of primacy to any broad category of religion as well as to any particular sect.

Based on that difference of opinion alone, there will be countless trials in which certain Christians who feel their rights are under attack will receive no help from the ACLU.

On the other hand, in 2002, the ACLU filed a suit against the Massachussetts Bay Transportation Authority for refusing to sell advertising space to a church because it disagreed with the church’s beliefs. If a government agency allows private entities to purchase advertising space, then it can’t reject Christian advertisements while maintaining separation of church and state.

It’s difficult to believe a case like this is a token, because it not only benefits the particular Boston church in question, but also sets a legal precedent, which would set back any secret anti-Christian agenda indefinitely.

In representing NAMBLA, the ACLU does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What we do advocate is robust freedom of speech. This lawsuit strikes at the heart of freedom of speech. The defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. (emphasis added)

Pleasant, noncontroversial speech doesn’t need protection. And even scum deserves a fair trial. The last thing you want is to have laws or legal precedent in place that are intended to prevent something horrific, but turn out to be broad enough that they infringe on something important.

A rather bland example would be simple-minded profanity filters. A month or two ago, there was a thread on the Comic Bloc Forums about a multiverse treatment written for DC by Michael Moorcock. People couldn’t use the author’s name, because it would get blocked by the filters.

Back to the ACLU and NAMBLA, you can follow through to their press release on the case in question:

The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. (emphasis added)

Hmm, their defense is based on free speech and personal responsibility. Personal responsibility…where have I heard that one before?

Think of it this way: the ACLU defending NAMBLA’s right to publish is like the NRA opposing restrictions on assault weapons—apalling on the surface, but in keeping with basic principles that people are entitled to express themselves or to possess weapons.

The thing is, if something is impinging on the civil rights of anyone, be they Christian or not, there is no guaruntee that the ACLU will defend your civil rights. I’ve done my own limited research about it, although I admit to disproportionately loving a book by F. LaGard Smith on the subject.

The ACLU’s consistent philosophy centers on supporting civil rights outlined in the Bill of Rights and further Constitutional Amendments, given the separation-of-church-and-state interpretation of the 1st Amendment. [edit: typo corrected]

This necessarily makes the ACLU an advocate for Christians when legal action impinges on the civil rights of Christians, and an opponent when legal action impinges on the civil rights of non-Christians by favoring Christians.

The notion that the ACLU would defend a token case to mask its true intentions smacks of paranoia, given the transparency of the agency’s political alignment. The ACLU’s agenda is to advance socially liberal causes, and they’ve made no effort to hide it, nor could they hope to gain by attempting to do so.