Today on Blogcritics
Home » Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?

Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Many have heard the ongoing debate on military recruiters in schools and the counter-recruitment efforts of the political left. Some schools are going so far as to sue the federal government on the grounds that their free speech is adversely affected by being compelled to allow military recruiters on campus in exchange for federal money. Get that? Schools (government actors) say their free speech is prevented because of conditions in accepting federal money don’t allow them to deny free speech to military recruiters (government actors). War is peace and all that. You know the drill.

Enter the American Civil Liberties Union. An organization solely devoted to protecting the Bill of Rights advocates the removal of military recruiters from schools and campuses. Much like the ACLU’s war on abstinence education, this isn’t an issue having to do with rights. You are free to listen to a recruiter, to ignore a recruiter, and to have protests about recruiters in schools. But the presence of a recruiter in no way, shape, or form impedes anyone’s rights.

The ACLU and others are not fighting military recruiting because it is a Bill of Rights issue. Nothing in that document implies that one has an absolute right to never be presented with ideas you disagree with, or, in this case, to prevent someone else from being presented with ideas with which you disagree. They are fighting military recruiters because they insist that only their policies and ideas be presented. They fight Christmas because Christianity is unacceptable in the public sphere. They fight abstinence education because that idea is unacceptable to them. Likewise, they fight military recruiters because people signing up to serve is unacceptable to them. This is not the advocacy and welcoming of free speech, this is the enforcement through judicial fiat of social conformity.

You can’t be all you can be if you’re dead, reads one sign. This is the side that the ACLU is on, the side that is against the troops. The side that says America is not worth dying for. The side that says people are stupid to serve. The side that says an 18-year-old is too young and ignorant to join the military, but that a 14-year-old is old enough to make intelligent choices about getting an abortion. The side that is trying to disarm us in the hope that in military weakness is strength. The side that insists on due-process rights for unlawful combatants not entitled to them by law, but routinely undermines due-process rights of soldiers awaiting trial for their alleged abuse of prisoners.

Our pre-9/11 response was weakness. Did that help? Osama bin Laden was quite clear and is quite clear; he thinks he can win because we are weak. Our Asian allies worry that we can’t win a war against China. The ACLU is on the fronts making sure we can’t.

Powered by

About John Bambenek

John Bambenek is a political activist and computer security expert. He has his own company Bambenek Consulting in Champaign, IL that specializes in digital forensics and computer security investigations.
  • Temple Stark

    Glad you got it all figured out. From everyn’es motivation to military strategy and ACLU evilishness. Please convince someone to hire you at the Pentagon.

  • Temple Stark

    Oh – and what should the legal drinking age be? And should high-schoolers be tried as adults. And should high school kids be allowed to fuck their teachers?

    my answers :::

    18
    very rarely, and at 16.
    no.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    John, your link on the “removal of military recuiters” was not the removal of them but rather the right for a student’s information to remain private.

    This right, like every other right, can be volutarily waived.

    That’s not advocating the removal of them.

    So why does the ACLU hate the troops?

    Because the ACLU hates America. And freedom. And they love terrorists.

  • Anthony Grande

    War on Christmas, war on the millitary, war on abstinence education and war on the minutemen project, what GOOD have they done?

    Back in the 20s they were founded by admitted Communists who want to destroy the Constitution, what has changed?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Mr. Bambeneck, why didn’t you elaborate upon the actual reason why some colleges do not want military recruiters on their campuses?

    From that About.com article you linked in your first paragraph:


    Many universities bar any recruiter that discriminates based on race, gender or sexual orientation. Consequently, some have banned military recruiters because of the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that excludes gay people from military service

    Did you read that whole article or did you just “forget” to mention the discrimination issue?

    Certainly, the notion of the ACLU “fight[ing] military recruiters because people signing up to serve is unacceptable” is far more sensational than the truth that the ACLU is standing up for the rights of colleges to bar discriminatory recruiting practices from their campuses.

    Not to mention that the omission of that little detail about discrimination better serves the purpose of demonizing the ACLU.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Mr. Bambenek, every now and then you come up with something that gives me pause, makes me think about a side of an issue that I had never before considered. This piece is exceptionally well written, but it is not one of those times.

    Did you actually read the webpages that you linked to?

    If you had, you might have discovered that the ACLU is NOT advocating removal of military recruiters from the school. They are advocating allowing parents to opt out of releasing all the student’s personal information to the recruiter. There is nothing there about them not being on campus or not being allowed to recruit at all.

    Likewise, if you read the information on the ACLU’s website about Abstinence Education, you’ll discover that they are only in favor of stopping Abstinence-Only Education. They have nothing against teaching children that if you don’t have sex, you don’t get pregnant or AIDS; they simply believe that you can’t tell them ONLY that without telling them how sex works, seeing as how it’s a biological process that is the central fact of human existence.

    Likewise, the link to your website provides not a single piece of evidence that the ACLU is attacking Christmas. When I entered “Christmas” in their website’s search engine, I did discover that last year the ACLU filed a suit against the state of Massachussetts for rejecting a “Put the Christ Back in Christmas” ad, because rejecting the ad violated the free-speech rights of the church that paid for it.

    John, I don’t genuinely think that you are twisting the ACLU cases on purpose to fit what you want them to say; I kinda suspect you just didn’t read them particularly carefully.

    On the other hand, you are certainly giving fuel to the people who DO say that you are just twisting the cases to fit what you want them to say. Not helping your cause, my friend.

  • Bennett

    All of what Temple, Margaret, Matthew, and Michael said, plus:

    The ACLU “routinely undermines due-process rights of soldiers awaiting trial for their alleged abuse of prisoners.”

    What is that all about? Note the absence of a link. This is just nonsense, made up to put some sort of icing on your phony cake.

    Please try again.

  • BG

    The ACLU has been despicable on this issue as well as others, despite a track record of sticking up for the little guy in the past. For background reading on the ACLU and their attempts to undermine America’s safety and security, may I suggest a visit to http://www.frontpagemag.com. Just type in “ACLU” in their search window and read away. It’ll be quite enlightening.

  • Bennett

    BG – Perhaps you could explain what you mean?

    The colleges are basically saying that as long as the US Military discriminates they are not welcome on university property.

    Sorry, but that’s the issue, one that JB forgot to mention in this detail-omitting diatribe.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    If only the US government would allow open homosexuality in the barracks, the ACLU would stop suing!

    UNLEASH THE PINK BRIGADE!

    :-/

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    UM, OK. Explain.

  • Alethinos

    The ACLU, like the cop on the corner, is very often the “bad guy” until you are desperate, in a corner, with no one to protect you OR your rights, then you’re ready to marry the bastards when they come busting through the door…

    Alethinos

  • MCH

    Re comment #10;
    “UNLEASH THE PINK BRIGADE!”

    I’d put ‘em up against the Yellow Brigade anyday.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Alethinos is so right. Everybody’s a bastard until they’re needed. I don’t find the ACLU to be some sinister organization out to eradicate goodness and decency. Nor do I believe that most conservatives have a sinister plan to take over the world. We all have our passions; it’s just a matter of keeping them in perspective.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    The cases the ACLU takes indicates something of their mindset. Sure, they are saying privacy in the case of giving numbers out to recruiters, but the gay lobby implicitly admitted homosexuality was a mental disorder to get Love in Action shut down in TN. (It was shut down for practicing psychology on mentally ill without a license). That doesn’t make homosexuals mentally ill, does it?

    Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say one is free from never having to be presented with choices or information that one does not like. That’s what I believe this to be about (and hence why this is opinion and not non-fiction). Sure, the couch it in privacy, or in the cases of colleges, about gay rights… I believe there is something deeper.

  • gonzo marx

    once again..the sloop John B has entirely missed the point that it is about the schools being forced to give out the personal info(INCLUDING phone numbers)of a student(in some cases in High Schools), that’s it…no more to see here…

    the original Post remains mercifully free from the ravages of Reason as well as factual accuracy

    still a perfect record

    Excelsior!

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Well, I went to the ACLU site for myself and was quite impressed. Once again only half the story gets told from the perspective of an ACLU opponent. I live by the code that there are two sides to a story and then there’s the truth. I’d suggest that before you continue on your tirade, JB, you really read everything that is laid out. What the RI Dept of Education did was reasonable.

    Our pre-9/11 response was weakness.

    What a crock. There could be no response if nothing happened yet. We weren’t weak. We were unprepared. There’s a major difference. In the aftermath we saw the finest in public safety and the military step up to the plate. Our biggest problem when it comes to public safety lies in the fact that we are a reactive society. You can’t blame that entirely on the government. People need to get involved in the process at all levels. Common sense dictates that mode of thought. Unfortunately, common sense is in short supply these days.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    This is probably a wasted effort as little light seems to enter the Grande Canyon but a couple of minutes research turned up that ONE of the THREE main founders of the ACLU had Communist views until the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939.

    I’ve included links in the text below direct to individual Wikipedia pages on the main three characters. Unprejudiced readers may notice that the ACLU defends the constitution, not tries to destroy it.

    This is from the ACLU’s own website:

    “The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

    Majority power is limited by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th) and the 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage), adopted in 1920.

    The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

    * Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

    * Your right to equal protection under the law – equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

    * Your right to due process – fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

    * Your right to privacy – freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

    We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

    If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled.

    The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and others in 1920.

    The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency.”

    Personally, I fail to see why anybody could be other than glad that such an organisation exists.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Chris,

    Re comment #18: I stand corrected. I had thought the ACLU was a single issue organization devoted to preserving the first amendment rights of the federal constitution, as they are extended by the 14th amendment.

    Live and learn.

    RJ,

    Re comment #10: A crack like that made in my son’s school would earn the person who made it a broken jaw. The idea that a homosexual is any less a soldier than any other soldier HERE just doesn’t work. Here, soldiers are judged by how they fight, not whom they sleep with.

    There is nothing “limp” about the wrist of a guy in uniform who stands with me and blows away a terrorist. He’d get the same compliment from me that anyone else would. “Kol hakavód lo” – all honor to him.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    The ACLU is one of the key organisations protecting the rights of all Americans. How could any US citizen not be proud of such a key group?

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say one is free from never having to be presented with choices or information that one does not like. That’s what I believe this to be about (and hence why this is opinion and not non-fiction). Sure, the couch it in privacy, or in the cases of colleges, about gay rights… I believe there is something deeper.

    Fair enough in that it’s only an opinion, but it does come off as kinda silly–a great big conspiracy theory–when you state this opinion and present no evidence to back it up.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    John Bambenek — to whom I sincerely apologize for misspelling his name in my earlier comment on this thread — writes, “Sure, the couch it in privacy, or in the cases of colleges, about gay rights… I believe there is something deeper.”

    Something deeper? That sounds ominous. Such as what?

    What else could the ACLU possibly be plotting besides the defense of our civil rights, such as the one to privacy and the one to take a stand against discrimination?

    Mr Bambenek, you are absolutely and positively correct that “Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say one is free from never having to be presented with choices or information that one does not like.”

    Perhaps you ought to consider that axiom as you scrutinize the policies and actions of the ACLU, which does not have the authority to make laws nor the power to “disarm us in the hope that in military weakness is strength.”

  • steve

    I dont understand what is wrong with the ACLU. they all have no morals and want the rest of the country to live by their ideology. I hope they all burn in hell just as well as they burn american flags.

  • Nancy

    Don’t think I’ve ever heard of any of them burning US flags, but I do admit to being nonplussed by them frequently, as they first defend something important, and then turn around and defend child rapists, pedophiles, & kiddie porn producers & dealers. Go figure.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Nancy, I thought they defended the constitutional rights of people. If you scroll all the way up to Comment #18, you can read for yourself what they do.

    You make it sound like the ACLU is in court defending them in criminal trials, which is not my understanding.

  • Nancy

    I don’t know. What I “know” about the ACLU could be writ on the head of a pin, & I admit it. Hence, my requests for correction & info.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Consider yourself informed, correction may have to wait ;-)

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    First, I’d like to comment on the ACLU not having the ability to make laws, or the idea more generally that lawyers aren’t responsible for the law.

    Our country’s legal system is largely based on case law. Yes, there are laws on books, but how they are applied play out in court. This is especially true in the area of constitutional law. Take Roe v. Wade. Someone make the argument that abortion would be legal without a lawyer who came up with the arguments to overturn it? Now those are courtroom decisions…

    Take the fact that many cases are settled out of court. Imagine this case. The ACLU shows up to your underfunded school talking about suing them because they teach abstinence. You know you don’t have the money to fight, much less lose because the ACLU collects millions in legal fees much less the cost of a judgement. Does one fight knowing they could barely afford their own legal fees, but certainly not risk the ACLUs legal fees or do they cave? Many cave.

    This attack on recruiters is relatively new. Well not new, but has been quiet for a long time. Since the Iraq war, many groups have been engaging in counter-recruitment because they are anti-war. Was the ACLU involved in counter-recruitment before 2001? Maybe, but I haven’t seen it. That could be a factor of the press not covering what was an irrelevant issue before Iraq.

    I see the ACLU allying with (and they’d say they are supportive of them as well) groups who are very clear in their intentions. Sure, the ACLU presents the legal tool (privacy), but the company they keep isn’t fighting recruitment based on privacy. They are fighting recruitment because they are anti-military. You can tell alot about someone by the company they keep.

    Is it good an organization like the ACLU exists… in theory, yes. But what the ACLU has grown to advocate is something that many hold is unconstitutional. Students are forced to not lead prayers in school. What part of the First Amendment requires that private citizens be silent in matters of religion?

    I mentioned abstinence education and put intelligent design in there too. Those are simply not bill of rights issues. Some may disagree and have very valid arguments against those ideas, but to disallow their presentation based on the First Amendment (designed to encourage diverse discussion) seems absurd.

    Is it a conspiracy? No. They have a world view they are advocating. They make allies who have similar views.

  • gonzo marx

    once again..factually inaccurate…

    the Issue of prayer in a publicly funded area is a “seperation of church and state” thing…NOT First Amendment…so you are flat out wrong there….again

    the ID issue is that, as i have stated time and again..ID is NOT science, by definition…but it IS philosophy and/or metaphysics…i am not aware of the ACLU getting into that fight at all, if you know of somewhere, please share the link….but however you look at it, it is NOT a “free speech” issue…that is a fallacious postulate for your own propaganda purpose

    might i suggest you attempt fact checking and at least looking up the terms you spew about to aid in the accuracy of your articles?

    IMO it owuld help to further a useful conversation where those involved might learn and grow rather than mere google-bombing propaganda with no basis in reality, which is where this Post resides

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Ok…

    Seperation of Church and state… a.k.a. Establishment Clause…

    First Amendment (emphasis mine):

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Read this on the church-state principle and how it is couched in the First Amendment.

    As for ID, you are correct, it is NOT a First Amendment issue which is exactly my point. The ACLU should not be involved defending the Bill of Rights by running the First Amendment out of schools… If anything the First Amendment prohibits the censorship of the topic in schools.

    Here is a press release on ID by the ACLU. There are many others but I can’t link them all because I can’t in comments.

    Seriously, go back to ad hominems, when you try facts you end up looking stupid…

    Church-state not first amendment? Ha.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Erm, I typo’d the “as for ID” paragraph… should read…

    Teaching ID is not an attack on the First Amendment, and the ACLU running it out of schools cannot be defended as a defense of the Bill of Rights or constitutional principles. It may be a bad theory, it may not be science, but those are policy decisions, not constitutional ones.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    I mentioned abstinence education…Some may disagree and have very valid arguments against those ideas, but to disallow their presentation based on the First Amendment (designed to encourage diverse discussion) seems absurd.

    I’ve already commented on abstinence education but I will do so again:

    THE ACLU IS NOT AGAINST ABSTINENCE EDUCATION. They are against abstinence-ONLY education. It is, to paraphrase Mr. Bambenek, to SHUT OUT diverse discussion. It says, “Don’t have sex. And that’s our sex education section of this class!”

    Mr. Bambenek, nobody disagrees with allowing sex-ed teachers to say “if you don’t have sex, you won’t get pregnant or acquire AIDS.” My teachers said it, and I’d be pretty annoyed if my kids’ teachers didn’t say it. But that statement can’t be the entire lesson about human sexuality. And those who want to make it so are, indeed, infringing upon rights.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    How is the decision to have abstinence education or not, by itself or not a first amendment issue?

    How does it fit into the 4 point mission of the ACLU on their own website:

    * Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
    * Your right to equal protection under the law – equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
    * Your right to due process – fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
    * Your right to privacy – freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

    That answer is, it doesn’t. It is strictly a policy decision between options that all have their reasonable points. THAT is my point.

    The ACLU is engaged in campaigns that shut abstinence-only (fine, that’s a legit correction) and ID out of the classroom. That’s the imposition of what is acceptable speech, not defending free speech. It’s a form of court-sanctioned censorship.

    I’m not saying there isn’t points to saying abstinence education shouldn’t be in schools (I disagree, but there is debate there), I’m saying that the decision to include it or not is a policy decision wholly unrelated to the mission of the ACLU, but they take sides anyway.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    I thought the point was that those supporting abstinence-only and ID were trying to force it onto others. It has nothing to do with free speech, we’re talking about education here and these trashy cult ideas don’t belong in schools. So, the ACLU is trying to defend the constitution, no problem.

  • Anthony Grande

    Liberals and the ACLU don’t support Abstinence education because it might actually help our society.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    The ACLU sided with NAMBLA, an organization committed to helping adult men rape little boys.

    ‘Nuff said…

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Wrongo-bongo. Anthony I am all FOR abstinence education. I just think it’s silly to believe that teaching abstinence only without supplying all the facts is pointless. Teenagers are biologically geared to stir the pot. They have active minds, raging hormones and a drive to resist authority. The ACLU sees it. Liberals see it. You refuse to acknowledge it. You seem to be one of the fortunate creations of nature who doesn’t have the raging hormones and drive that most boys of your age do. Perhaps that’s a good thing; on the other hand, I wonder how your eventual life partner will react.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com Michael J. West

    The ACLU is engaged in campaigns that shut abstinence-only (fine, that’s a legit correction) and ID out of the classroom. That’s the imposition of what is acceptable speech, not defending free speech. It’s a form of court-sanctioned censorship.

    Ahhhh. but it is! At least in the case of abstinence-only education. Because abstinence-only is saying that teachers do not have the freedom to discuss the actual biological, scientific processes involved in sex. So in that case, the ACLU is actually defending educators’ right to free speech.

    I’m not totally familiar with the ACLU’s position on ID so we won’t go into it here.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    RJ: “Why did the ACLU defend NAMBLA?
    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. For more information, please read the ACLU’s press release.” from ACLU FAQ

  • MCH

    Re comment #19;
    “Here, soldiers are judged by how they fight, not whom they sleep with. There is nothing limp about the wrist of a guy in uniform who stands with me and blows away a terrorist. He’d get the same compliment from me that anyone else would.”
    – Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Dittos, Ruvy. I wonder if most of those who mock the military service of homosexuals do so in order to make themselves feel braver about their own non-service?

  • Luke

    There’s such a thing as abstinence only sex ed? I’m going to try and figure this out, what you’re saying about the biological processes and such, you’re saying that they don’t teach kids about scrotums and sperm and ovaries and stuff, or anything about firtilisation or fetuses or show any cool 3d generated science videos showing the development of the fetus and things, or about how the dna works and stuff, they only say, SEX IS BAD, DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SEX, OR EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, until you’re married, that’s fnukin stoopid, because whether sex is bad or not is entirely beside the point, “don’t have sex, or you’ll get aids, and then you’ll die, here have some condoms”

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Re: #35.

    Again, you may disagree about abstinence education, but schools aren’t preventing parents or other groups from teaching kids anything they want about sex. Schools pick and choose the curriculum every day. Those are policy considerations, not constitutional issues.

    Re: #39.

    I know of no restrictions on teaching sex ed. There might be some abstinence only grants, but schools via their property taxes can teach anything they want.

    My point is not to state whether or not we should teach abstinence only, but the fact that it is a POLICY issue not something that has a play in the US Constitution.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    you can’t cloak things as mere policy issues when they involve matters of church and state.

    many of these abstinence only/intelligent design/prayer in school issues are pushed by conservative christians.

    when government institutions collide headlong with those who want their way, religiously speaking, then the constitution is most definitely involved.

  • RogerMDillon

    Why does John Bambenek hate this country?

    If you actually cared about the US of A, you’d be denouncing Duke Cunningham for selling his office to the highest bidder rather than writing yet another anti-ACLU article.

    Spin that!

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Mr. Dillon, from what I can gather, Mr. Bambenek hates that he can’t punish under law anyone who disagrees with his ultra-right-wing views. The law already punishes GLBT people, but until all liberals, Democrats, Greens, socialists, pinkos, commies, dissidents, pacifists, atheists, nonJudeoChristians, nonconformists, dissenters, etc. are also limited by law in their pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; cowering in fear of The Man, or behind bars, it appears he will not rest.

  • steve

    Whats so bad about being ultra right wing??? Welcome to the club John!

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “Liberals and the ACLU don’t support Abstinence education because it might actually help our society.”

    I wonder if I could dig up that study that found that students taught abstinence only are more likely to have sex and get pregnant. I’ll look for it.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    #44 re: Mark.

    So now all opinions pushed by Christian conservatives must be disallowed because of their religious affiliation? And that’s required by the Constitution? I didn’t realize that the Constitution required that the opinions of a large chunk of the population be ignored.

    #45 re: Roger

    Did that 2 days ago. Nice try. You lose.

    #46 re: Natalie

    No, that’s really not true and reveals you are more interested in forcing your opinions than engaging in debate. It’s the Left’s version of If you’re not with us, you’re against us.

    #48 re: Scott:

    You could. Also look up human history. Teenage pregnancy, out of wedlock pregnancy, STDs, abortions, etc are all less in societies that practice abstinence as a rule as opposed to the exception. For thousands of years of human history we have never had the scope of problems we have now.

    The study will show that people who do eventually have sex with abstinence ed do so LATER in life, like when they are adults and not when they are 12. That’s a good thing.

    If safe sex is so great, why is there a drug called “Plan B” on the market?

    If safe sex is so effective why do almost 20% of people getting abortions do so after perfect use of contraception?

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    no, that’s not what i said.

    those particular issues are being pushed for religious reasons.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Only 7% of Americans say sex education should not be taught in schools.

    46% of those polled above believe that schools should teach that abstinence is best, but also discuss how and where to obtain contraceptives.

    15% of those polled believe that schools should teach only about abstinence from sex, and not discuss how to obtain contraceptives or birth control.

    36% of those polled believe that sexual education should teach teens how to make responsible decisions about sex. They find the abstinence-only programs to be too strict and the students might potentially suffer from ignorance about sexual matters.

    There is very little evidence that teens who learn about sex in abstinence-only programs refrain from having sex longer than others. And the problem is that when they do have sex, they often fail to use contraception – this being a major problem in teens who take virginity pledges. On the flip side, students in a comprehensive sex-ed classroom do not become sexually active more often or earlier, and they use contraception more consistently.

    Sex ed does not make teens want to have sex any more than abstinence only programs deters them. Teens want to have sex because they’re teens.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    “Teens want to have sex because they’re teens.”

    Telling them to abstain would seem to be the best way to make teens want to experiment sexually. That “do what I say, not what I do” approach rarely works for some reason…

  • Liberal

    Why does the right think it has a right to define “America” and its values and label those who disagree with them as “America-hating”?

    Really, who the hell do you people think you are?

  • gonzo marx

    as per comment #31…

    i most abjectly stand corrected for not making myself perfectly clear…

    the point i was attempting to make was to distinguish between Free Speech and the “no establishment of Religion” clause

    i have only myself to blame for not being atriculate and lucid enough to make myself clear

    mea culpa….mea maxima….i plead 38 hours standing up and heroic doses of pain medication for my unfortunate lapse in textual clarity

    hopefully , my Point is more clearly made now

    as for sloop John B , he sez…
    *Seriously, go back to ad hominems, when you try facts you end up looking stupid…*

    nice try…but i will leave it to the gentle Readers as to whether i indulge in “ad hominem attacks” as opposed to the text of this Post…

    hell, i never need to add hominems….i always make certain there are plenty of hominems to start with…i try to not run out

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Non-proprietary information — such as how our reproductive organs work — is a human right.

    To deny such information to children is a violation of their rights, regardless of some parents’ desire to keep their children ignorant about such matters — as if ignorance and innocence are the same thing.

    This is an interesting scenario, Mr. Bambenek:

    “The ACLU shows up to your underfunded school talking about suing them because they teach abstinence. You know you don’t have the money to fight, much less lose because the ACLU collects millions in legal fees much less the cost of a judgement. Does one fight knowing they could barely afford their own legal fees, but certainly not risk the ACLUs legal fees or do they cave? Many cave.”

    Why would they cave unless they already know that they will lose in court?

    How is the ACLU responsible for the decisions made by the people/organizations against whom they bring suits?

    How are laws struck down/changed/made when such cases are settled out of court?

    If the school in question decided to fight rather than cave, wouldn’t it be the judge, not the ACLU, who made the final decision one way or the other?

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Re: Margaret:

    Non-proprietary information as a human right? That’s an interesting theory no where in the Constitution. No one is PREVENTING the information about contraception from being given to children. They are simply saying we are teaching X in schools.

    For instance, there is nothing against NOT teaching ID in schools as a matter of policy choice. Sure, there should be discussion and all that, but if that is the policy decision, that’s fine. Imposing a code that prohibits the discussion hinders free speech.

    Likewise abstinence education. You can choose to teach about all the sex you want in schools. You can choose to teach abstinence only. Both are valid policy decisions. There is nothing saying that all information on every subject must be presented by schools because that would simply be impossible.

    But you do bring up an interesting point of view of those who advocate abstinence education, namely the assumption that all parents are dead-beat and or failed parents. That’s why we have to teach sex ed in the schools, because we can’t rely on parents to be… well, parents. That is a fundamental assumption with which I cannot assume. I’d rather treat the exceptions and exceptions, leave the schools to focus on reading, writing, and arithmatic, and let those who are in the business of values teach them instead. That is an aside.

    The point being, which has not been refuted, is that teaching abstinence only DOES not violate any constitutional norm. It’s a policy aim that the ACLU wishes to impose.

    As for settling, I never said laws are struck down and changed because of settled suits, but behaviors are changed. Usually suits entail injunctions that prevent the behavior in the future, so in effect, perhaps not legally, the law has been changed.

    Why would you cave if you have a winning case? Because you can’t afford to defend yourself. Happens all the time. Go to your nearest courtroom. Show up for the arraignment call for the people arrested over night. Follow what the prosecutor says to them…

    Now find people represented by attorneys, and see that they get a better deal. Why? They have the money to fight.

    There is also another factor, namely, you never know how a case will be decided. You win some, you lose some. You almost never know if you have a 100% winner until the verdict comes down. Who would have thought 50 years ago that the Pledge would be thrown out on Constitutional grounds?

    How is the ACLU responsible? As I said above, lawyers are responsible for the formation of case law. I fundamentally disagree with the ideas that lawyers are not responsible for the cases they make to the courts and the results of those cases.

  • JR

    John Bambenek: But you do bring up an interesting point of view of those who advocate abstinence education, namely the assumption that all parents are dead-beat and or failed parents. That’s why we have to teach sex ed in the schools, because we can’t rely on parents to be… well, parents. That is a fundamental assumption with which I cannot assume. I’d rather treat the exceptions and exceptions, leave the schools to focus on reading, writing, and arithmatic

    Now you see, you’re assuming that parents aren’t teaching their children math (as any competent parent would) or how to read and write (many people I know learned at home). Obviously you, like the rest of us, are not willing to rely on parents to be parents.

    What do you think public school is, if not a bunch of kids bored out of their minds waiting around for the slow students to catch up? Grade school is all about redundancy and repetition. The fundamental assumption of universal schooling is that there are enough dumb people out there to justify putting everyone through the same basic courses.

    …and let those who are in the business of values teach them instead.

    Sex education is not “values”, it’s basic health information. And no, we don’t trust all parents to know this information; that’s how too many of them became parents.

    Why do you hate the poor?

  • Natalie Davis

    re – 49: Oh please, Mr. Bambenek. Your crowd calls the shots, and hurling an untruth at me doesn’t erase from memory your constant anti-liberal tirades. Additionally, it communicates your lack of humanity.

    nr davis

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Yes, Mr. Bambenek, non-proprietary information is a human right, why do you think we have such things as schools and libraries?

    Not every human right is enumerated in our Constitution (see the 9th Amendment), but just because they aren’t there doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. For example, womens’ right to vote always existed, it just wasn’t officially recognized in America until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.

    Don’t you want to stand up for your right to non-proprietary information, Mr. Bambenek? Or would you rather some government entity decide what you may or may not learn or read?

    Do you understand how this is a First Amendment issue? How can we guarantee freedom of speech if our educations can be arbitrarily limited under the guise of satisfying varied and subjective views of morality?

    Public schools are in service to the whole of the public, not just students and their parents. The dissemination of basic health information (I’m with you on that, JR) behooves the public interest.

    The availability of comprehensive sexual education is not about the quality of parenting students receive at home, but the education necessary to maintain a well-informed citizenry.

    And it’s not about values, either. Values is where that whole parenting thing is supposed to come in. You know, teaching the kids how to deal with their sexuality according to their family’s own cultural, religious and civic values, ethics and morals.

    That abstinence is the only 100% effective prophylactic against pregnancy and disease is certainly a vital piece of information of which no one should be deprived.

    But it is not the whole picture because it does not take into account that abstinence is not a practical lifestyle choice when it is chosen under the duress of intimidating lessons about the “dangers” of human sexuality.

    Indeed, lawyers are an essential part of the lawmaking process. But please try to remember that every court case has two sides, each represented by its own attorney(s). How court cases turn out, however, is up to judges and juries.

    If the ACLU actually had the power for which some people give them credit, “under God” would already be out of the Pledge of Allegiance (if the ACLU would have even let it get shoehorned in there in the first place), same-sex marriages would be recognized in all 50 states, the war on drugs would be long-over just like Prohibition (its predecessor) and none of that oppressive and tyrannical post-9/11 knee-jerk legislation (such as the USA Patriot Act) would even exist.

    And that’s just a small sampling of where we are eventually headed as we pursue the promise of freedom as it was laid out by our Founders a little over two centuries ago.

    Scary, huh?

    Well, America is called “the land of the free and the home of the brave” because freedom requires the responsibility to exercise our God-given free will (sincere repentance is not possible without it) and the courage to trust our fellow Americans to do the same in their own ways.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “I wonder if I could dig up that study that found that students taught abstinence only are more likely to have sex and get pregnant. I’ll look for it.”

    Hmm. I read a study (don’t have the cite) that indicates that students taught in an abstinence-only environment DO tend to delay sexual activity a year or more (on average) than their peers.

    The problem is, when they eventually DO begin to have sex, they are LESS likely to have “safe-sex” which leads to an increased number of “unplanned” pregnancies…

  • Bennett

    Well said Margaret! You always amaze me with your focus and clarity.

    Thank you!

    Once again…

  • RogerMDillon

    Re #45

    All you did on your blog was write three sentences, none of which used Duke’s name, and then linked to an article. You have written nothing about the subject on BC, which gets a much larger audience. It’s no wonder why you are considered a joke.

    Nice try. You lose.

  • gonzo marx

    to RJ…

    last season of Bill Maher had a study showing that those who signed the “abstinance only Pledge” did indeed not engage in intercourse until much later…

    however…

    they engaged in oral sex over 40% more than their peers

    and were almost three times more likely to have engaged in anal sex…

    i guess the abstinance contract had some loop”holes”….

    Excelsior!

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Margaret-

    Explain to me how a school not presenting information is somehow RESTRICTING non-proprietary information? The libraries still exist. Planned Parenthood still exists. The world wide web still exists. Parents are still free to teach their kids whatever. Churches are still free to teach kids whatever. Just because a school doesn’t present something doesn’t mean that somehow they are squelching the information in society.

    If schools don’t present contraception ed, that’s not deciding what you may or may not learn. Many people learn outside of schools. Maybe you haven’t. But many, nevertheless do. No one is saying you can’t talk about contraception anywhere in society, your panting paranoia aside.

    Sex ed is presenting a moral view of society, and one-sided at that. So does DARE, and for that matter all those incessant anti-drinking talks. Don’t pretend that teaching contraception is somehow value neutral. It IS a moral issue. The moral goes something like you should have safe sex because it is responsible, because it prevents disease, because it prevents pregnancy, and so on.

    There are many organizations that have a specific purpose of disseminating health information. Guess what, schools aren’t one of them. Schools also don’t disseminate information on cancer, asthma, sports injuries, acne, obesity, and a variety of other health issues. There is a reason for that, schools are not designed with the purpose of teaching kids all about health issues. That’s what doctors are for.

    The concepts of contraceptions aren’t difficult, it doesn’t take schools to present them. You can take a poor person out of a homeless shelter, and odds are they know about it. Sex is the ultimate equal opportunity action… it doesn’t take a rich person, white person, or smart person to engage in it.

    And I’m not saying judges and juries don’t bear responsibility, they do. I’m saying lawyers bear some as well, and that’s a fundamental disagreement with how people look at the system. Yes there is two sides, but that’s the thing, there are only two sides who present information in the best interests of their client, not the best interest of society.

    The statement that our founding fathers intended us to have same-sex marriage is quite bold. And quite unfounded.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Roger-

    I’m sorry I didn’t write a few books on the matter. You see, I wasn’t all that interested. You know why? It doesn’t surprise me. If you want more in depth stuff I’ve written about Republican corruption, I can find it. But it doesn’t matter.

    I’m a limited government conservative not because I’m a Republican. I’m a limited government conservative because I don’t trust ANY politican to not eventually become corrupt, regardless of party.

    I think the biggest problem facing the integrity of our country is the lack of a strong alternative party to the GOP. Not because I think the GOP’s platform is wrong (it certainly could be improved), but because I don’t expect the GOP to actually implement their platform without someone keeping them honest.

    Harriet Miers was run out by my camp, not because of her views per se, but because she was a “good-ole-boy” pick. You see “trust us” doesn’t fly with the rank-and-file.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Gonzo-

    And I have a study that shows that Planned Parenthood in Illinois covered up over 10,000 cases of child sexual assault in 2000.

    Your point?

  • JR

    John Bambenek: Harriet Miers was run out by my camp, not because of her views per se, but because she was a “good-ole-boy” pick. You see “trust us” doesn’t fly with the rank-and-file.

    That’s funny, you sounded pretty trusting in this post, and you sure didn’t sound like you were trying to run her out: That aside, I think the White House planned things this wayMiers will slip onto the court without a fight on her, but a fight on the criticism of her. It is a political calculation of expediency to slip her onto the court and get a solid conservative there while disarming Democrats to stop it. Bush doesn’t want a filibuster fight, so they took this route.

  • JR

    John Bambenek: Just because a school doesn’t present something doesn’t mean that somehow they are squelching the information in society.

    And for the opposite argument from the same guy, there’s this post:

    The ACLU says they are the guardian of liberty who works to defend and preserve individual rights. However, they are less fighting for something than fighting against something. They fight against intelligent design and abstinence education not because they infringe on rights, but because they are part of an order they believe needs to be abolished.

    You’ll say anything to try to make your point, won’t you.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    JR:

    Close, but not quite. I’d rather parents and school boards decide the curriculum, not ACLU and their interpretation of federal law. That’s the difference. I don’t mind people making policy choices, that’s why we have them. I do mind federal courts issuing mandates about what not to present.

    For instance, if the White House signed a federal law that said abstinence only in all public schools, that would be wrong too.

    Not an opposite argument, nice try. Please try again.

    Also, I said my camp, not me. There’s a difference. You know, we aren’t all mindless automatons like those on the left. We like diversity here.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    we aren’t all mindless automatons like those on the left

    if you ever want to be taken seriously (yes, i know…you don’t really care what anybody things) around here, you really should reconsider such binary thinking.

  • http://www.fifthdentist.blogspot.com The Fifth Dentist

    Bambanek:
    You revel in your own stupidity the way a pig revels in it’s own shit.

  • gonzo marx

    to comment #66…

    10 thousand? in just the year 2000 alone? wow, link em if ya got em, please

    i have heard about some being “covred up” involvin gplanned parenthood..it was my understanding that these were cases of minors coming for treatment due to abuse by parents/family members or other adults and was deemed a “privacy issue” to protect the patients

    which is my understanding of why the ACLU advocates on the side of privacy when it comes to parental or spousal notifications….to protect the victims of abuse…how bad would it be to notify an abuser that their victim is coming in for treatment BEFORE the patient is treated? sounds to me like the recipe for more abuse, eh?

    as for my Point, my comment #63 was in response to RJ’s comment #60…as i stated in my comment plainly

    your Point?

    Excelsior!

  • RogerMDillon

    No one asked for a few books. Let’s see you link to one BC post out of your 98 where you wrote about Republican corruption. Betcha can’t.

    Your claim that you don’t write about things that don’t surprise you rings false. With all the articles you’ve written about the ACLU, surely your perceived conduct of them can’t be a surprise anymore. Yet, you soldier on.

    “You see ‘trust us’ doesn’t fly with the rank-and-file.”

    It seemed to fly with going into Iraq.

    The biggest problem facing the integrity of our country is the integrity of its citizens.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Roger-

    Have you written about Democrat corruption? Just curious. Have you noted the many Democrats that have done the same exact shit DeLay has? Noted the number of Democrats involved with Abramoff?

    Gonzo-

    Study isn’t online as far as I know. I have the text, but you’ll take that as it doesn’t exist.
    As far as privacy, medical personnel are required by law to report child abuse (including sexual).

    Mark-

    That was a tounge-in-cheek statement.

  • RogerMDillon

    I don’t write about political corruption. There’s not enough time in the day. And what is the need with all the hacks at this site already attempting it? Plus, my skills at Photoshop make me overqualified.

    I’m not sure what Delay has done wrong yet. Haven’t heard the evidence. Are you implying that he’s guilty? Same thing with Abramoff. I hear his name a lot, but until he goes to trial, I don’t pay much attnetion to the finger-pointing and whining.

    I am against politcal corruption no matter which party is doing it. You conveniently say you are when it’s buried in the comments, but your articles paint a different picture.

    By the way, I noticed your response failed to include the link to your BC post about Republican corruption. Was that an oversight or an admission?

  • gonzo marx

    to John B

    i wanted to view the version of this “study” that you have for a few reasons

    1) i had heard of it, and 10,000 in one year in a medium population state seemed way to large for abuse alone….my poking around has indicated a large percentage of what your “study” called “abuse” was actually from consensual behavior between underage girls and their still in high school 18 year old boyfriends, as well as other variations AND abuse all tossed into this one “category” since an 18 year old boy sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend can be prosecuted in some states for statutory rape

    as for the medical privacy bit you cite…i am well aware that many states do require the police to be notified if medical personnel suspect or have evidence of child abuse

    my understanding is that what the ACLU has been fighting is mandatory PARENTAL notification, add to this that in some of the suits listed on the ACLU site involve the privacy of a minor for consensual behavior….and that is where it is getting very sticky on the legal front due to the statutory rape law in some states among other issues

    so the difference here is defining consensual behavior as opposed to abuse…the study you cite(if i have the correct one) lumps ALL of the aforementioned into one “category” of “abuse”

    just the kind of privacy/protection Issue one would want advocated and argued in Court, don’t you think?

    i asked to see the linkage for the study not out of Doubt, but to try and see ALL the variables and details, since what you quoted appeared to be only a fraction of the entire equation

    Excelsior!

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    There is principle and then there is pragmatism, Mr. Bambenek.

    Technically, you are correct, “Just because a school doesn’t present something doesn’t mean that somehow they are squelching the information in society.”

    However, they are squelching the information from the students they have an obligation to teach. Even if there are plenty of books, web sites and organizations that offer the same information (and there are lots of them), schools have a special responsibility to ensure the dissemination of information that is vital to maintaining a free society with a high standard of public health.

    Puberty, unlike cancer, asthma, sports injuries, acne and obesity, is not a disease that requires some form of treatment, it happens to everyone (with the obvious exception of those who suffer from diseases or birth defects that affect their development).

    Our adolescents have the right to know what is happening to them as well as the right to be taught, not just pointed in the general direction of extra-curricular reading material.

    Reading is but one aspect of the learning process and it doesn’t do much good if there are no teachers present to answer questions, clarify difficult concepts, lead discussions and create lessons that help students remember what they have learned and read.

    Prophylactics have nothing to do with values or morals, they are merely devices that must be used/applied correctly to work properly. Values come in when one is deciding under what circumstances one might — or might not — choose to use them.

    “…you should have safe sex because it is responsible, because it prevents disease, because it prevents pregnancy, and so on.”

    No responsible educator would make such an incomplete statement.

    The most common form of the above goes something like this: “Abstaining from sexual activity is the only 100% certain method for avoiding pregnancy and disease, but if you do not abstain, then you should practice safe sex [insert clinical lesson in safe sex methodology].”

    Now, we could keep going ’round and ’round and back and forth on this, each of us trying to trip the other up for the sake of our respective egos, but if public discussion and debate are all about winning and showing off our respective skills in applied logic, practical semantics and propagandizing (a big “no no” in a formal debate, BTW) then it is little more than non-productive amusement.

    I am interested in more than just winning and receiving praise from like-minded peers.

    I want to understand the sort of mindset that produces such notions as sexual education courses that omit lessons about all safe sex practices except for one (abstinence).

    I want to understand why some Americans accept — and even promote — simple-minded authoritarian solutions (such as the war on drugs) to complex problems.

    And I want to understand why some Americans feel that their rights are violated when the government does not show preference for their standards of morality over all others.

    Most of our founders owned slaves and did not recognize womens’ right to vote (they were all quite dead by the time the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920).

    However, the founders did not consider our rights as being conferred by government upon the people, but rather that they originate from Natural Law, which operates independently from the laws of man.

    In the very beginning, many Americans were concerned about the ratification of a Bill of Rights, believing that rights that were not enumerated in it could never be recognized.

    The 9th Amendment, which reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” addressed that concern.

    The right to civil same-sex marriage has always existed, we just haven’t yet gotten around to fully recognizing it. But now that that right has been discovered, it is only a matter of time before it is secured, recognized and guaranteed.

    Read California Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s decision regarding California’s Proposition 22. Under our Constitution as it exists today (specifically the 14th Amendment, which was also ratified after the founders exited their mortal coils), it will be the future and the fate of all such oppressive laws because the majority does not rule here.

    Mr. Bambenek, you may not be comfortable with the idea of our government recognizing civil same-sex marriages, but other than arbitrary and subjective manifestations of personal discomfort, no one can rationally, logically or Constitutionally justify not recognizing them.

    Won’t you please join us in celebrating these wondrous times? We’ve never had it so good as we do right now. We are so fortunate to be witnesses to the greatest ascension of a society in all of human history. I really hate to see people missing out on it to lament the passing of some better past era that never was.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Margaret writes,

    “Won’t you please join us in celebrating these wondrous times? We’ve never had it so good as we do right now. We are so fortunate to be witnesses to the greatest ascension of a society in all of human history. I really hate to see people missing out on it to lament the passing of some better past era that never was.”

    Wondrous times? Ascension of a society in all of human history?

    I don’t know, Margaret. When I was a kid there were no milk cartons with missing kids on them, there were not that many kids stuffed in garbage bins or fed formula with vodka; second graders didn’t sell drugs in school. Homeless people didn’t abound. Seventh graders didn’t get pregnant in huge numbers. Divorce and illegitimacy were not plagues in our society. They are now.

    Women didn’t have fantastic opportunities in the work market, but by and large housewives DIDN’T HAVE TO WORK. Their husbands were able to make enough to support them and their families. Think about that for a minute.

    I’m not talking about rights, I’m talking about need – something very different. Today, you have a right to do many things your mother or grandmother couldn’t – which you may view as wondrous. And do understand, I don’t begrudge you that right, or that opportunity. I do not now and did not ever believe in “kinder, küche, kirche.” But the likelihood was that not doing those things was an unfulfilled dream, as opposed to having to bring home enough income to support your family, either in full or in part.

    Your standard of living in America, as defined by the need to work, has dropped dramatically in my lifetime.

    From where I sit, Americans, and all those tied to her economic system, have been reduced to units of human capital by an élite that does not give a damn for your lives or welfare, and is happy to condemn you all (and all of the rest of us) to violence and insecurity while pretending to combat the criminality thsat it itself has encouraged. It wasn’t just intermarriage that I fled when I left America.

    What you see as an ascent is in reality a decline, what you praise as an eminence is a pit. What is unfortunate is not that you (and millions like you) see the world this way, but that there is probably nothing I can do to get you to see it otherwise. A pity.

    So now, on that pleasant thought, Im going to shave and pray that G-d allows me to forget the worries of the week and take joy in His Sabbath.

    Shabbat Shalom, (Sabbath peace to you)

  • JR

    Ruvy in Jerusalem: When I was a kid there were no milk cartons with missing kids on them, there were not that many kids stuffed in garbage bins or fed formula with vodka; second graders didn’t sell drugs in school. Homeless people didn’t abound. Seventh graders didn’t get pregnant in huge numbers. Divorce and illegitimacy were not plagues in our society.

    …as far as you knew.

  • http://www.markiscranky.org Mark Saleski

    remember, people have been thinking that society is going to hell ever since we’ve had a society.

  • SFC SKI

    People who side with the protests on the grounds that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is dicriminatory seem to forget that the military does not set its own policies rather it adheres to the policies imposed by the civilian leadership within our government, both in the executive and legislative branches. I wonder how many of these protesters have contacted their representatives to protest this policy.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Believe this or not, milk cartons with missing children on them is a sign of progress. Look at it from the perspective of history, people of all ages and walks of life have been going missing ever since there have been people.

    Nowadays, we are more aware of it and we have the means to actually do something about it with modern communications technology, ads on milk cartons, “Amber” alerts, etc.

    We have become a more caring society with regard to missing persons and, as a result, we find more of them (alive, in many cases) than we ever did in the past.

    Infanticide and child abuse/neglect are not new, either. Again, this is an issue of which we have become more aware, resulting in fewer such incidents.

    Second graders still don’t sell drugs in school. Perhaps there was one sensational case of a child that young acting as a front for a dealer (likely a relative), but this is atypical as the vast majority of drug dealers are beyond school age.

    Now, don’t get me wrong here. I am not an idealistic optimist ignoring the problems of modern American society. For example, we have not yet transcended the mindset that continues to feed the war on drugs.

    Homelessness isn’t new, either. However, today we treat the homeless with far more dignity than we ever did in the past and since we have become aware of the problem, there are far more people and organizations helping homeless people.

    Seventh graders don’t get pregnant in huge numbers. Again, I am sure there were a few incidents, but it is hardly an epidemic.

    Statistically speaking, Americans are having children later in life than they did in the past. In the 1950s, the average age of first time mothers was 17, today it is 23.

    Our most important progress with regard to “illegitimacy” is that it is no longer considered to be a stigma upon the child.

    The divorce statistics are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is tragic how roughly half of all marriages end in divorce, but on the other, women (and some men too, just to be fair and balanced) are no longer trapped in unhappy, abusive relationships.

    Sure, housewives still do not have to work (in jobs outside the home, cooking, cleaning, marketing, tending to children etc is hard work).
    Women are free to choose what they wish to do with their lives. Back in the day when housewives didn’t have to work, they were frequently not allowed to work if they wanted to.

    The reason why so many see decline is the result of the technological progress that has given us a 24-hour news cycle.

    Think about filling 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year with the sort of news that is most likely to get the high ratings shares.

    “If it bleeds, it leads” is the credo of that highly competitive market in which the sensational, the bizarre and the tragic receive so much airtime that isolated incidents often appear as epidemics.

  • JR

    SFC SKI: People who side with the protests on the grounds that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is dicriminatory seem to forget that the military does not set its own policies rather it adheres to the policies imposed by the civilian leadership within our government

    Then who was Clinton backing down to when he settled for that compromise? Do you really think the Joint Chiefs have no influence on policy? They certainly had a lot to do with getting us into Vietnam; the politicians didn’t want to get into that mess.

  • http://www.filmdailies.com Krasimir [FilmDailies.com]

    Seems a bit one-sided to me. Maybe I blinked and I missed the other point of view…

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    for some reason my response earlier did not post

    Margaret-

    You make plenty of fine points for the policy of including comprehensive sex education, however, none of them are federal constitutional questions. Not every policy is a matter of the Constitution to decide. Some could argue the sex ed all together has no place in schools. Some could argue differently. The point is, there is no reason that the Supreme Court needs to define what shall be the policy nation-wide on the basis of law. That is my point, is that it is a policy question best left up to locals to decide. It is NOT a constitutional issue. That is my point here, and that alone.

    I am, however, interested in the fact people think anti-drinking, anti-smoking, and anti-anti-drug programs in school are so effective where abstinence is not. I’m also interested in why we have all these programs about getting parents to talk to their kids about it, but when sex is involved all the sudden parents can’t be trusted.

    As far as gay marriage goes, I think the debate is largely absurd with two camps largely talking past each other. The anti-gay marriage camp has their idea of marriage and fights largely on the detail of who can participate. The gay marriage camp has a different definition and fights on the detail of who can participate. I think, instead, we should have a debate on what we want marriage to be and that will largely settle who the participants can be.

    Roger-

    I don’t write about corruption generally either, which is my point. I may touch on it only in the sense that people like Abramoff has ties to Democrats too and that claims that one party is better suited to “clean up corruption” are silly. You write on topics you are interested in, and I write on topics I am interested in. Corruption is not particularly one of my interests. Sorry if the fact that I have different ideas offends you.

  • gonzo marx

    John B. sez…
    *and that claims that one party is better suited to “clean up corruption” are silly.*

    interesting…did you feel that way in 2000 when your “camp” ramped up it’s bit against corruption and values against the Dems?

    just curious

    i am all for tossing the lot of them feet first into a woodchipper on Pay per View

    that shoudl balance the budget

    Excelsior!

  • RogerMDillon

    It’s your bias and blind allegience to your party that offends. If you actually wanted things better for this country, you’d point out problems with both sides.

    “If you want more in depth stuff I’ve written about Republican corruption, I can find it.”

    Still waiting, but not holding my breath.

  • JR

    Comment #81 is exactly how I would have responded if I were a serious commenter.

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    “I wonder how many of these protesters have contacted their representatives to protest this policy.”

    This one. Still do. Constantly.

  • A teacher

    Kudos to Margaret for her many wonderful contributions to this thread!

    I am, however, interested in the fact people think anti-drinking, anti-smoking, and anti-anti-drug programs in school are so effective where abstinence is not.

    Well, for one thing, teenage sexual activity occurs through a combination of internal (hormonal) and external (peer pressure) factors, while smoking, drinking, and drug use occur primarily as the result of external factors, and external factors are easier to control and change.

    However, I wouldn’t really say that anti-smoking, drinking, and drug programs did a significant amount of good either. Which is precisely why it’s important to provide students with full information. Talking about the dangers and risks associated with these activities will deter a lot of kids, but not enough of them and, in the case of sex, not for long enough, and it is important that kids have all the information they need to be as safe as possible when they finally do take part in these activities. You wouldn’t tell kids not to drink without also telling them that if they do, they shouldn’t drive, and demonstrating how little alcohol it really takes to interfere with their ability to handle a car. By the same token, you shouldn’t tell kids not to have sex without also telling them how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STDs if they do. Somebody mentioned above the studies that have shown that kids who study in abstinence-only programs or take pledges of abstinence do delay their sexual activity by a few months to a year compared to their peers. However, when they finally do engage in sex, they are far more likely to have unprotected sex, and far more likely to engage in risky sexual behaviors such as anal sex without protection, because they don’t know what they need to know to protect themselves. And that is the real tragedy of abstinence-only education.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Gonzo-

    To be fair, in 2000, I wasn’t as politcally aware or involved as I am now. However, if my views are as they are now back then, I wouldn’t have bought it. I don’t buy it when the GOP pulls that nonsense in Illinois for the upcoming election either.

    I’m not so sure about a woodchipper, I’m not Qasay, but as a general rule, I’m all for voting the bums out. The problem is the lack of good alternatives.

    Roger-

    Maybe you haven’t quite gotten the point here… you said yourself that YOU don’t publish on corruption. Guess what, neither do I.

    I advocate principles that make corruption less likely and less impactful. A small government can only have small corruption. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

    I’m antipathetic to the finger-pointing games that go on and try to avoid it because it gets no where. If you want to talk about the system, that’s a different story. And the problems start with a 2-party system. I’m not an advocate of a multi-parti system, but I’m against political parties in general. Their purpose, first and foremost, is to win elections, not advance an agenda.

    Teacher-

    That’s exactly my point, they don’t do a lot of good and often do more harm. I’ve seen that DARE has caused an increase in hard drug use.

    But that’s also not my point, my point is that these are POLICY considerations, not US Constitutional considerations. Is every single policy a matter of the federal constitution?

  • RogerMDillon

    You now say you don’t publish articles about corruption. How would I guess that when only yesterday you wrote,

    “If you want more in depth stuff I’ve written about Republican corruption, I can find it.”

    Both statements can’t be true. Do you want to decide which is the true one now, or wait a couple of days and see if you have yet a different story? This is why you have a credibility problem with a majority of the people who post comments.

    If you advocate smaller government, where are your BC articles denouncing the Republicans increasing the size of government?

    Lastly, your sentence should read you “are apathetic to the finger-pointing games,” not antipathetic, although your posts paint a different picture as you constantly attack the ACLU, MoveOn and the left in general. I’m not saying you shouldn’t go after them, but to say you don’t point fingers is a tad disingenuous.

  • SFC SKI

    JR, I did not say that the Joint CHiefs have mo say in military policy, but they are officers who will follow whatever policy the CinC or Congress puts into place. Do you think the orders that brought minorities into the ranks alongside whites was met with wholehearted support? No, not by a long shot, but those officers who felt strongly enough resigned their commissions, as would those who disagreed with allowing gays to serve openly. Remember , Clinton had a poor reputation with the military before and throughout his term in office, he did not push too hard to make it any worse. HE could have, if he chose to, simply made an Executive Order to allow gays to serve openly, and let the chips fall where they may. It would have been disruptive, and controversial, but in the end, most of those in uniform are professionals who will obey the orders of those appointed over them if they wish to remain in uniform, if not they are free to leave. Remember, service is voluntary, and I hope that never changes.

  • troll

    * A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.*

    best of Bambeneck bumpersticker of the day – well said

    troll

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Inebriants are a choice, sex is a natural human appetite. I think it’s bizarre when smoking, drinking and drugs are lumped in with sex as if sex is unhealthy and addictive in the same fashion as a chemical intoxicant (I also find the expression, “alcohol and drugs” to be ridiculous because alcohol is a drug).

    Treating the subject of human sexuality as if it is a vice is the main problem I have with abstinence-only sex education. One must develop a taste for cigarettes, cigars, liquor, beer, wine, cannabis, etc, the sex urge is an inborn natural instinct.

    Nonetheless, none of these programs that may or may not actually help young people to learn about adult matters have anything to do with whether or not parents can be trusted to provide such lessons effectively. Part of becoming an independent adult is expanding one’s horizons beyond one’s upbringing and learning about ideas and viewpoints other than those taught “at home.”

    I think the debate about same-sex marriage is rather absurd, too. Indeed, both sides are largely talking — and yelling and shouting, too — over and past each other and that is not terribly productive. However, what is preposterous about it is that the side against it has no rational defense of its position — and I have looked for it earnestly because I do not like to get caught without good counterarguments when I engage in serious debate on any matter.

    When I must decide my position on political and/or philosophical issues, I try my best to look at both sides objectively so that I can apply the basic principles of logic in making my determination because I don’t do partisanship (fat lot of good that would do anyway, seeing as both the Democratic and Republican parties’ platforms are basically the same regarding the civil recognition of same-sex marriages).

    In the case of same-sex marriages, it is a simple matter of who is deprived of civil and human rights.

    It is most conspicuously obvious that it is the gay and lesbian people (as well as their children/families) who are being deprived. No one — and I have looked and looked because I want to be certain — is deprived of any right if the state recognizes civil same-sex marriages.

    If the marriage issue is about “who can participate,” then this rationale is self-evident.

    However, if it is an issue of “what we want marriage to be,” then the answer might not be so readily apparent because we then must get into the issue of whether marriage is a religious matter or a legal business contract, which leads to a decision about whether or not it is Constitutionally appropriate for the state to recognize it at all.

    Marriage means different things to different people. For some people it is a spiritual contract with God, but for others, it is a legal document that outlines rights and responsibilities with regard to children, taxes, property, inheritance, medical decisions, etc. Although I suspect that, for most of us, marriage is both of those things.

    This angle often leads into the discussion of civil unions versus marriage, which is, legally speaking, a matter of applied semantics.

    The state currently recognizes marriage in the same fashion as any other business contract between two parties.

    In America, people are not legally married and entitled to the temporal benefits of marriage unless they obtain the proper documents from the government. Whether or not a marriage is then solemnized in a religious venue is not within the purview of the state.

    What is interesting about the polls on the subject of same-sex marriage is that a majority favors the recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples. It seems that the main contention is with the use of the word, “marriage.”

    Many people are uncomfortable with calling same-sex couples “married,” and the majority of the gay and lesbian community sees the use of the term “civil union” as oppressive along the lines of the segregation-era notion of “separate but equal.”

    So, perhaps the fair and just solution is that the state should not recognize marriage at all. Maybe the legal contract that outlines Earthly benefits and obligations of marriage should be called a civil union — regardless of the gender orientation of the participants — making the word marriage into an exclusively religious term.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Roger-

    Sure both can be true. I have written some stuff on it… just not alot. because the topic doesn’t engage me. Has it been at BC? I don’t crosspost every single thought in my head. But the point, which you fail to grasp is why does it matter? If you want to make partisan points by pointing out corrupt Republicans, do you own f***ing dirty work.

    Margaret-

    Alcohol is perfectly fine in moderation and in appropriate circumstances. Same is true for sex. The assumption that anyone who advocates abstinence before marriage as thinking sex is a vice is not only wrong, but intended to deceive on the issue. It is less of an intelligent statement, and more propaganda to deride opposition. Those who employ it are either ignorant or malicious.

    But sex CAN be a vice. Serial rapists, for instance.

    Maragaret, thank you for confirmed that your opinion is that parents cannot be trusted and are adversaries as far as government policy should be concerned. Many things are taught at home that the government doesn’t have a problem with, religion being one. Parents are also encouraged to talk to their kids about smoking, etc etc. Now, all the sudden, when we talk about sex, parental involvement is out the window. Interesting.

    As far gay marriage, you are right because most people hold up an idea of marriage that we don’t even pretend to uphold. The ideal is woman, man, their children, for life. The relationship for thousands of years found its entire purpose in getting two adults who wanted to be together (more or less) and created a family. It was for the raising of children in a safe environment.

    Now we have no fault divorce and “as long as love shall last” marriage vows. Marriage is viewed as independent of children, and in fact, marriage as an inconvenience. Most people treat it as legitimate fornicky, with the irony is that people end up having much less sex that way. So in short, we’re stuck in the middle… we have an ideal that no one dares say what it is, because we’d basically be exposed as hypocrits.

    The solution is to either stand up for the ideal and LIVE the ideal, or not bitch when people take the next logical step in having marriage be little more than sexual fulfillment.

    I’d sooner just get rid of the social recognition because shacking up deserves no benefits.

  • RogerMDillon

    Both can only be true when you change what you said. Now you have changed it from not writing about corruption to not writing alot about corruption. I knew if we waited long enough you’d alter your statements again.

    Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to point out corrupt Republicans or Democrats because I’m so busy pointing out dishonest and corrupt bloggers.

    Serial rapists aren’t in it for the sex, but for the power.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Roger-

    Both can’t be true because you insist they can’t. I don’t write much on corruption, that doesn’t mean I don’t write anything.

    You:
    If you actually cared about the US of A, you’d be denouncing Duke Cunningham for selling his office to the highest bidder rather than writing yet another anti-ACLU article.

    I did that, and provided a link. You just didn’t like the fact I didn’t write a book on the matter.

    You:
    Let’s see you link to one BC post out of your 98 where you wrote about Republican corruption.

    See, you’re moving the posts. Now I need to post it on BC.

    You:
    I don’t write about political corruption.

    Here’s you holding me to a standard that you don’t hold yourself too.

    You:
    It’s your bias and blind allegience to your party that offends. If you actually wanted things better for this country, you’d point out problems with both sides.

    I don’t spend my time pointing out corruption on both sides because as far as I’m concerned both are corrupt. The problem is, since you don’t write about Democrat corruption, your blind allegiance shows that you hate America. (Your words, right back in your face).

    here is something I’ve written, or here, or even here.

    After reviewing my blogcritics posts, there are no posts on corruption that I’ve put here. For the same reason I’ve said above, I’m just not all that interested in it. Neither are you.

    Put up or shut up. Let’s see some posts on Democrat corruption from you, otherwise you are just making shit up to club me with. Nice try. You lose.

    And bullshit rapists aren’t in it for the sex, they certainly are. It’s just not about sexual GRATIFICATION.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Parents do not have the right to isolate their children from the outside world, Mr. Bambenek. I know this because I have four children myself — and I let them get all sorts of ideas from sources other then myself and their father, which often makes for rather interesting and enlightening family dinner conversation.

    While my children are inside my home, I will try to do my best to help them grow into self-reliant, considerate and responsible adults.

    But the quality of my parenting is not relevant to my childrens’ right to knowledge and their right to expand the scope of their lives, have new life experiences and build their characters outside of my home. And all other children have the same rights as mine.

    Some people say that children have “the right to a mom and a dad,” which is ridiculous because no such right could ever be secured or guaranteed due to our natural mortality.

    However, I believe the basic right that is actually being articulated — although rather unclearly so — by these generous folks is the essential right to knowledge, which naturally comes first from parents or parental equivalents.

    But children have the right to knowledge other than that which they learn from their parents. Children have the right to knowledge from teachers, pastors and other mentors, as well as books and the media, life experiences, new relationships etc, etc, etc.

    They have this right, regardless of parents’ various rights to custodial authority over minor children.

    And whether or not parents can be trusted to properly educate their children is completely irrelevant.

    I apologize if I was unclear about these points in my earlier comments.

    And now that I have let you have it with that, I’m going to get all gushy and sentimental about your notions of marriage. You are likely — or perhaps someday might be — a loyal and devoted husband. Good men are hard to find.

    Not every man has such ethics, but apparently this is not rare. If half of all marriages end in divorce, then half of all marriages don’t. Is that ubiquitous old glass half-empty or half-full?

    Perhaps good men are hard to find because many of them are already happily married and not making sensational headlines about the lurid side of divorce statistics.

    Freedom is basically being able to do whatever you want whenever you want so long as you don’t infringe upon another’s rights in doing so, but it also entails a certain amount of courage, responsibility and tolerance because without freedom and free will we cannot sincerely repent.

    Now, just because some people are unrepentant is no reason to impose tyranny upon the whole of the people. Some people are very honest, ethical and loyal and some aren’t so much to one degree or another.

    When any of us violates the rights of another, the state steps in, not because it has authority over the actions and behavior of the people, but because it has the obligation to protect and defend our civil and human rights.

    And if the Constitution doesn’t do it for you, how about the Bible? One recurring theme in the New Testament is that we are supposed keep our focus upon our own sins and leave our neighbors to focus upon theirs.

    Being mere flesh, none of us are fit to judge the sins of our fellow mortals. It is all we can do to try and truly repent for our own misdeeds.

    This is one of my favorite passages of Scripture. I try to live by these words because they are the basis of my ethics with regard to dealing with the failings of my fellow man.

    Matthew 7

    1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    Take it as you will.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Margaret-

    You’ve made your point quite clearly, parents cannot be trusted, ever. Man needs government not to protect, but to control. That is a position I do not hold. The idea that parents teaching their kids about sex is somehow metaphysically restricting knowledge is absurd and betrays the fact that since there are parents out there who would teach as you would not have them do, that no parents can or should be trusted. However, this is NOT a constitutional question, and that was my point.

    If you want to talk about policy, fine. These are not constitutional questions that requires a federal judge to apply an imprimatur on school curricula.

    I’m not sure why you are bringing in the “judge not” Bible verse (one of the most significantly misused and misrepresented verses in all of scripture) here. If people want to engage in fornicky, I’m not suggesting we form the cock police to kick in doors to find them out.

    I am suggesting that marriage originally came with social recognition because it was beneficial to society. By and large what made it beneficial to society has been lost in many cases. If we want to be honest we should either adhere to what makes it beneficial or get rid of the legal recognition of it all together.

    Shacking up does nothing for society and should not come with tax breaks.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Mr. Bambenek, I do not know how or where you have gotten the idea that I am an authoritarian who believes that man needs government control. Perhaps my most recent comment was unclear due to the lateness of the hour at which it was written.

    I could be wrong, but I think the following assertion from my comment #98 is as plain as day:

    When any of us violates the rights of another, the state steps in, not because it has authority over the actions and behavior of the people, but because it has the obligation to protect and defend our civil and human rights.

    I believe as you do. The government should have no authority over the actions, behaviors and lifestyles of the people (including no authority to dictate values and ethics with regard to marriage). Rather, our government is obliged to protect and defend the rights of the people.

    This includes childrens’ right to knowledge from sources besides their parents. Parents teaching children about human sexuality is a good thing, but children also have the right to learn about human sexuality from other sources too (not instead of).

    I really cannot think of how I can make this point any more clearly. Parents teaching their kids about sex is not “metaphysically restricting knowledge,” parents who prevent their children from learning about sex (or anything else) from other sources — in addition to, not instead of — are restricting their childrens’ right to knowledge.

    Man needs government to protect his rights, not to control his behavior. The same is true of parents with regard to their children because parental authority is limited by the rights of the children.

    Parents can teach their children whatever they please. What they cannot do, however, is isolate their children from other points of view.

    This is not about trusting or not trusting parents (where are you getting that notion anyway?), it is about childrens’ rights, which are not enumerated by their parents, but in the Constitution.

    I thought that Matthew 7:1-5 applied to your assertion that, “The solution is to either stand up for the ideal and LIVE the ideal, or not bitch when people take the next logical step in having marriage be little more than sexual fulfillment.”

    I was not certain if you meant that as a collective or personal assessment, but either way, the Scripture is relevant.

    If you do (or plan to someday) take your own marriage vows as seriously as you stated earlier, then why worry about others who trivialize marriage as “legitimate fornicky?”

    You will have your reward for being a loyal and devoted husband/father and those others will have theirs — although the emptiness of such an existence might not feel like much of a “reward” to them.

    As mere flesh, it is all we can do to try and make the most of our own marriages and families. We are all sinners and, as such, are unfit to take on the business of judging the sins of our fellow sinners.

    “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23)

    Now, some people take Romans 3:23 as a rationalization, an excuse for their lack of repentance, but that’s not what it means in the context of the teachings of Christ.

    Likewise, Matthew 7:1-5 is also incorrectly used as a justification for the evasion of responsibility for sins and failure to repent when it is actually an obligation to avoid judging other peoples’ sins because we cannot reflect upon and repent for our own sins while we are also engaged in the business of judging our neighbors.

    We’re supposed to try our best to avoid sinning, but since we are but mere flesh, we often miss that mark. However, if we repent, God forgives us our sins.

    If America was indeed founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics, those outlined in the Scriptures I quoted here are the foundation of our freedom and our Republic.

    I have been trying to put those concepts together into a coherent form and I am not quite there yet, but I’m getting close. There have been many attempts — and this thread contains a few of them.

    “Shacking up does nothing for society and should not come with tax breaks.”

    I agree. Have you ever considered that there are same-sex couples who want to be married because they don’t want to just “shack up?” That they might want their relationships and families to be beneficial to society?

    Is gender even relevant if we’re talking about how people should treat marriage as something more than “legitimate fornicky?”

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Margaret-

    You argue that the conveying of comprehensive sex ed is meant to correct the violation of rights parents do when they choose to present a concept of sexual ethics that contradicts what you would have them know.

    That’s not a limited government idea, that’s the enforcement of one specific mindset with the assumption of bad intent of parents. I’m perfectly familiar with all the forms of contraception out there (I think i guess, maybe there is more stuff out there). And you know what, it’s completely useless information in my case.

    It is possible to go through life with an appropriate sexual ethic and know nothing about contraception. But that’s also entirely besides the point. My point is that this is not a federal constitutional matter, it is a policy choice. Period. One in which there are good arguments on either side. (Besides the puerile argument that “they’ll just do it anyway”).

    If children’s “rights” were violated because parents wish to raise them in a specific tradition, then private schools would be unconstitutional. Now the bar seems moved. Teaching abstinence only is not parents preventing knowledge about sex. In fact, I don’t think fleeting mentioning of contraceptive methods violates abstinence only. But now we are talking about specific teaching methods.

    Parents can and do isolate their children. You can make moral arguments about that, and largely I’d probably agree in some of that. What you can’t make is an argument about how constitutional rights are being violated by parents. For the reason that the Constitution in now way prevents parents or for that matter private citizens in what they do in a large degree. Only one crime is mentioned in the Constitution, treason. Private citizens are free to discriminate as far as the constitution goes. That’s not to say it is right, but now you are making moral arguments, not legal ones.

    The idea that the US Constitution controls how parents can or cannot raise their children is quite an expansive view of the document that seeks to limit power of government, not the power of private citizens.

    Moving on, what makes you think I’m worrying about what other people are doing? I’m making a legal / philosophical statement about what marriage is or should be. You are using Scripture to largely neuter any Christian from ever saying anything. The Bible itself is pretty clear in many areas of moral life, that verse is not meant to be self-consoring of the Bible.

    Am I saying people are going to Hell, no. I’m not a fundamentalist. I’m saying what marriage should be and should not be. The idea that the statement translates into an advocacy of Big Brother in the bedroom is also an expansive view of my comments.

    We’re talking about what marriage should be. Am I not allowed to have political ideas?

    Maybe we should back up here, what benefits to society would gay marriage (or by extension, shacking up couples) bring?

    As far as being founded on Judeo-Christian principles, there is a difference (and the Bible recognizes it) between those who fall but get up and repent, and the idea that we need to cement in sin into human institutions.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    “You argue that the conveying of comprehensive sex ed is meant to correct the violation of rights parents do when they choose to present a concept of sexual ethics that contradicts what you would have them know.”

    Where? When?

    Perhaps I was unclear. I never intended to assert that comprehensive sex education is some necessary correction of parents’ teachings, but rather an enhancement to them, an addendum with extra clinical facts, an alternative viewpoint so that they can know that alternative viewpoints exist and what they are.

    Sure, it is healthier for younger children to be introduced to man’s virtues and vices in careful stages, if possible — the human condition and the realities of life on this Earth often get in the way of such long-term parenting strategies.

    However, parents do not have the right to control what their pubescent children may or may not know about any subject.

    Knowledge is a human right and one needn’t be legally old enough to vote to enjoy that right.

    Children who show signs of physical maturity are entitled to knowledge of adult matters because they will be becoming adults very very soon.

    Furthermore — and I hope that I can make this point clear this time — however, parents are most decidedly not violating the rights of their children when they choose to present their own concept of sexual ethics to their own children!

    Where did you get this nonsense about my being concerned about one parent’s presentation of sexual ethics contradicting what I “…would have them know?”

    Why should I or anybody else have the right to dictate what other parents should tell their kids about sex? That’s none of mine or anybody else’s business.

    “The idea that the US Constitution controls how parents can or cannot raise their children is quite an expansive view of the document…”

    No! The US Constitution does not control how parents can or cannot raise their children!

    What the US Constitution does do, however, is oblige the government — as well as the citizenry, seeing how government is of the people — to protect and defend the civil and human rights of the people. And that’s really just about all it does (it is, after all, only four pages long).

    Wherever did you get the idea that I believed otherwise? Seriously, I am working on making my writing clear and concise and I am curious to know where I went wrong with you, Mr. Bambenek. Could you please copy and paste some relevant quotes?

    Parents do indeed have the right to present their own concept of sexual ethics to their own children. But they do not have the right to keep their children from knowledge, which includes the knowledge of other concepts of sexual ethics.

    Parents have an obligation to protect their children, but they do not have the right to isolate them, especially after they have reached the age at which their reproductive parts have already come on line.

    I know it’s hard, but ya gotta let ‘em go out into the world sometime. Do you really want your kids going off to college not knowing much about contraception?

    Even if you manage to effectively instill the moral value of abstaining from sex until marriage, young adults have very strong feelings that can be almost impossible to resist.

    Now, I’m not so much discussing some lurid possibility of rampant lust and promiscuity, as I am romantic love, which is far more intense and compelling than mere lust (I hope I can successfully teach my children that there is a big difference between the two).

    Anyone who has ever had such feelings knows that the physical manifestations of attraction are far more intense when emotion is present. It’s not just sexual gratification, it means something, after which it is quite easy to rationalize regardless of everything their parents may have told them.

    “I’m making a legal / philosophical statement about what marriage is or should be.”

    And I’ll bet your philosophy about what marriage should be is very close to mine. I despise the notion that marriage is nothing more than a license to procreate, it cheapens the whole institution.

    Legally speaking, marriage is nothing more than a business contract. That is all the state really has the authority to recognize for the purposes of taxes, property, inheritance, medical care, etc.

    The spiritual aspect of marriage is where it derives its true meaning. Two people coming together to make a public declaration of the loving formation of a new family, a lifetime commitment of fidelity and a promise to care for one another until death, in good times as well as bad.

    “You are using Scripture to largely neuter any Christian from ever saying anything. The Bible itself is pretty clear in many areas of moral life, that verse is not meant to be self-consorting of the Bible.”

    No, Christ did that, as it were. He teaches us not to judge our neighbors’ sins, that we are unfit to do so and that we need to contemplate the beams in our own eyes before concerning ourselves with the motes in our neighbors’ eyes.

    And as long as we are fixed into our mortal coils upon this Earth, we will never see clearly enough to cast the motes out of our neighbors’ eyes’

    It’s not that you can’t say anything to try and make a fellow sinner you allege to have sinned (as mere mortal flesh, we really shouldn’t be too certain that we know sin when we see it) stop sinning and repent, you just cannot positively declare that one of your fellow sinners sinned and mete out his punishment — That’s God’s job, you know.

    Being a mortal sinner myself, I could be wrong, but isn’t presuming to know the Lord’s will supposed to be a manifestation of the deadly sin of pride?

    “Maybe we should back up here, what benefits to society would gay marriage (or by extension, shacking up couples) bring?”

    First and foremost, progress toward the expansion of liberty. And that should be more than enough to satisfy any Constitutional concerns.

    Are you attempting to dehumanize homosexuals (shacking up?) by suggesting that they lack the capacity to have serious committed relationships?

    Are you suggesting that gay and lesbian people demand their right to civil marriage because they want a license to “shack up?”

    “As far as being founded on Judeo-Christian principles, there is a difference (and the Bible recognizes it) between those who fall but get up and repent, and the idea that we need to cement in sin into human institutions.”

    Indeed, there is a difference between repentant and unrepentant sinners. But since we are all sinners whether we repent or not (you don’t get a pass to judge the sins of your fellow sinners just because you repent your own sins, BTW), how do we know which supposed sin is worse?

    Of course we all know what Leviticus 18:22 says about “men who lie with men,” but isn’t making that judgment here on Earth a sin as well?

    Too much for this mere mortal to figure out. The Constitution is so much easier to understand.

    And, if you understand that document as well as I am beginning to suspect that you do, you already know that, despite your personal feelings about the matter, our government is obliged to recognize same-sex couples’ right to civil marriage. You simply cannot rationalize that away.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Let’s discuss the legal status of children for a moment.

    They cannot own property. They cannot choose where they live. They cannot choose where they go to school. They cannot legally sign any document. They can’t be treated in all but the most rare circumstances by any medical professional. They cannot even get their ears pierced. They cannot consent to have sex. The only notable exception is that for some reason they are allowed to have an abortion.

    If you argue that this parental power is unconstitutional, that’s fine, but that’s also a radical departure from their legal status right now.

    There is a difference between not presenting information and preventing its dissemination. Children aren’t presented with nuclear physics, that doesn’t mean the knowledge is being censored.

    That’s the legal argument. To say that abstinence only education is unconstitutional is absurd on its face. You COULD argue that it is unwise policy, but that it is illegal is simply indefensibly wrong.

    Moving on to the judge not verse. There is a difference between meting out divine punishment and saying a certain thing is a sin. In fact, your interpretation of that verse not only precludes saying certain actions are wrong, but also that certain things are right. It makes proclaimation of the Gospel immoral. (You can’t say what is right without applying some judgement that other things are less than right).

    I would also hold you don’t believe that interpretation either. Do you think it is just and right to come across a rapist who is raping a young girl and do nothing? Of course not, you judge that to be an evil act that requires a just response. Who will argue that we cannot say pedophilia is wrong? Murder? Theft? Slander? The list goes on. There is a difference between saying certain acts are wrong and that a person is hellbound.

    As far as license to procreate, I would argue that marriage for the most part has nothing to do with procreation and that’s the problem. Europe is dying off (at least the non-Muslims). The only thing keeping the US afloat is immigration. The problem is that marriages have nothing to do with procreation for the most part which has led to exactly the problems that many people predicted during the birth control movement. Widespread objectification of women, spousal abuse, high divorce, child abuse, deadbeat dads, porn, prostitution, and so on.

    The interpretation that shacking up entails a dehumanization is quite expansive and misinterprets my point greatly. Sure, people can be in committed relationships. Marriage is far more than a committed relationship. You can be dating and in a committed relationship.

    Marriage USED to be understood as a covenant in the law. Now it can hardly be considered a contract. A covenant requires you to adhere to your terms even if other parties break theirs. A contract requires you to adhere to your terms until the other party breaks theirs. Marriage (in our current law) requires you to adhere to the terms as long as you feel like doing it.

    There USED to be meaning in even the legal recognition of marriage. It wasn’t just something you did for yourself and the other party. It had an important social role. Sure, women couldn’t really hold jobs back then, but something else interesting was also true. Unmarried men could hold no jobs of significance either. Society understood the extreme importance of having children. As Europe is learning now, the very survival of a society depends on not only having kids, but kids raised in a stable environment. Marriage ceremonies are done publicly for a reason. It was more than just the two people involved, it was the community also. And faithfulness to that obligation was something you did more for your wife and kids, it was something you did to keep from harming your community as well.

    This has largely been lost, and why it is high time we have a discussion on what we want marriage to be. We can argue whether procreation or not should be a part, who the parties are, so on and so forth. But its time we figure out what we want marriage to be instead of the institution being adrift being pulled from all sides.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Comment #81 above was chosen as Comment of the Day for Friday December 2nd 2005.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Mr. Bambenek, I suspect that you are a bachelor with no children who is still waiting to find that special someone with whom to share your life. But, of course, I could be wrong.

    Some life decisions are deferred to parents or guardians in order to protect the rights of children who are too young to understand and fulfill the responsibilities of owning property, choosing a place to live, selecting a school, signing documents, etc.

    Parents do not have any power or authority over their children! Believe me, I have four of them. This is the basis of my allegations of your childlessness (if you do have a child, he or she is likely an infant). This notion of “parental power,” as if such authority could ever be tenable.

    People are entitled to live free from the moment they are born. Parents are obliged to make certain decisions for their minor children because they ere responsible for protecting their childrens’ rights.

    The acquisition of knowledge is essential so that those who are experiencing that fleeting and oh-so-temporary condition known as youth can someday understand and fulfill adult responsibilities.

    Besides, you really can’t control how they’re going to turn out anyway, you’re just going to have to trust me on this for now. Someday, when you have children of your own, you will accept this as a universal truth. If you already have some, you might be in for a few bitter disappointments in the future.

    Lots of people have a difficult time telling the difference between crime and sin. I theorize that this is due to the many archaic and oppressive authoritarian laws we still have on the books (a good deal of which are based upon the Bible rather than the Constitution).

    Being unfit to judge our neighbors’ sins does not preclude us from saying that certain things are right or wrong. We mortal beings are quite capable of defining what is and is not a crime (an act that violates the human and/or civil rights of others), we just aren’t fit to judge sin. That’s God’s purview.

    Sins are acts that displease the Lord. I don’t think we are supposed to be so proud to assume that we know His will. God gave man free will, which man cannot logically have if he knows for certain what God expects of him on Earth.

    “Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall.” — Proverbs 16:18 (I just really like that Scripture, it helps to keep me humble).

    Crimes are violations of civil and human rights, which we have enumerated in documents that oblige our government of the people to protect and defend the rights of the people.

    Since we humans enumerated the rights our Earthly government is obliged to protect and defend, we are fit to judge when such rights have been violated or denied — and to mete out our prescribed Earthly punishments via the due process that also protects and defends all of our rights.

    If we really want to live in true freedom, we really need to take responsibility for handling the temptations of freedom ourselves — and stop making the government do the Lord’s work.

    Figuring out what we want marriage to be in terms of the government is quite easy. The government recognizes marriage as a legal business contract that lays out obligations dealing with temporal matters like taxes and property.

    This might not seem terribly romantic and/or spiritually meaningful, but that is the limit of the government’s authority in a free society.

    In recognizing marriage, the government protects our rights as gregarious creatures that have a natural instinct to pair up, reproduce and form small interdependent groups by providing us with a legal instrument that brings order to the Earthly business matters of families.

    “Marriage ceremonies are done publicly for a reason. It was more than just the two people involved, it was the community also. And faithfulness to that obligation was something you did more for your wife and kids, it was something you did to keep from harming your community as well.”

    That is a beautiful sentiment, Mr. Bambenek. Please take heart, those noble values cannot possibly be lost if you know them and live by them. And since half of all marriages do not end in divorce, you can rest assured that you are not alone.

    Keeping focus on the beam in your own eye is not just about avoiding sin and resisting the temptation to judge your neighbors’ sins. It also entails contemplating your own values and maintaining your own ethics, which we aren’t doing when we are busily engaged in the business of judging the sins of our fellow sinners.

    It is not up to the government to provide incentives or disincentives to make the people have a high regard for marriage and the traditional values associated with it.

    First and foremost, freedom means taking responsibility for the success or failure of our own marriages and families, which is extremely difficult when we blame the popular culture’s current attitudes with regard to marriage, instead of reflecting upon the state of our own homes.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    I’m married, thanks.

    And I was speaking of LEGAL authority. You are making a legal argument, now you are moving the posts yet again. You are doing pretty well at taking a specific class of argument and twisting my words.

    We aren’t meant to judge people. Your interpretations of the Bible are novel and interesting, they are also wrong. That interpretation largely drains the entire meaning from the Bible. There are certain things that are morally wrong, there is nothing unjust or prohibited about saying murder is evil.

    We don’t have to assume we know His will in what is or is not sin. He’s made it perfectly clear b coming in person and telling us. The 10 Commandments weren’t some manmade invention. They are also quite specific. The idea that God has not made clear what he expects from us in the general sense is clearly wrong. I daresay heretical.

    You use the word reproduce in a purpose of marriage. That’s interesting because you advocate for marriages that by definition can’t reproduce. Your understanding of why marriage has come to be and is recognized by the government is also supported by absolutely nothing in history. Heck, women couldn’t really own property until what? 100 years ago? What was marriage then?

    The idea of the judge not or beam verse largely meaning that everything and anything must be tolerated because nothing is wrong is devoid. It neuters any intelligent discussion.

    What about marriages between brother and sister?
    Marriages between three people?
    A whole community?
    Animals?
    A playstation?

    Society recognizes marriage and confers some benefits on it in exchange for something that it does for society. Two people having sex does nothing for society.

    It most certainly is for the government to provide incentives and disincentives. Do you argue that the child tax credit should go away?

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    People are entitled to live free from the moment they are born. Even children. Children are people, not property. And that is their legal status in the United States of America.

    Parents do not have any legal power or authority over their children, only the legal power and authority — as well as the legal obligation and responsibility — to act on their behalf in the protection and defense of their rights.

    Parents not only have the legal right to discipline their children, they have a legal obligation to do so. As a matter of fact, it could be construed as a violation of a child’s right to knowledge if his parents neglect to teach him that most important lesson about how choices, actions and behaviors have consequences.

    Parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit according to their own religious, cultural and philosophical beliefs so long as they do not violate the rights of their children in doing so.

    The ubiquitous example is that parents do not have the right to beat and/or starve their children, even if they sincerely believe that such interdictions are for the childrens’ own good.

    (BTW, beating and starving refer to the abusive forms, not things like spankings or occasionally sending them to bed without dinner when they act up at the table)

    “There are certain things that are morally wrong, there is nothing unjust or prohibited about saying murder is evil.”

    Well, of course there isn’t! Murder is easily identified as a crime, a violation of the victim’s right to life. We can even prescribe Earthly punishments for murderers, such as life in prison without parole.

    But we are not fit to judge murder as a sin or to presume what sort of fate murderers should or will receive in the next life.

    Of course we have the Scriptures to serve as a guideline — such as the 10 Holy Commandments, several of which we also define as crimes: lying, cheating, stealing, killing — and we can contemplate and discuss them so that we might attempt to have a clearer understanding of what the Lord might expect of us here on Earth, but we can never assume that we are certain and still have our free will.

    Indeed, biologically speaking, both the male and female gametes are required for reproduction. But that’s only one way to make a family, there are others, such as adoption.

    I should not have included the word “reproduce” as it is too specifically defined as a biological process to apply to the broader range of concepts involved in the formation of families.

    Some people pair up and choose to adopt children (perhaps because they are unable to reproduce biologically or maybe they think the world is overpopulated and adoption is more charitable), others pair up already having had children and not desiring any more and some either choose to, or due to advanced age, remain childless.

    I apologize for my lack of clarity. Please allow me to re-phrase.

    In recognizing marriage, the government protects our rights as gregarious creatures with a natural instinct to pair up and form small interdependent groups by providing us with a legal instrument that brings order to the Earthly business matters of families.

    This not only includes the families of gay and lesbian people, but also every other relationship dynamic that cannot or chooses not to naturally reproduce.

    How we make/find/get our families is not relevant to the recognition of our rights. We needn’t acquire our children via biological process to be entitled to the protection and defense of our civil and human rights. This is not an issue that is dictated by society and culture, but rather it is imposed upon us via the biological fact of death.

    “Society recognizes marriage and confers some benefits on it in exchange for something that it does for society. Two people having sex does nothing for society.”

    “Social engineering” is an authoritarian socialist concept that has no place in a free society in which the government has no authority over the people but is instead obliged to protect and defend the rights of the people.

    The benefits of marriage are not supposed to be some reward the government doles out to those of us who have obtained marriage licenses. That would be unconstitutional.

    When people pair up to form a public bond (marriage), they are entitled to the recognition of their rights as an entity (a family) because they become more than just two individuals.

    Besides, a marriage needn’t do anything specific — or even at all — for society in order for said marriage to be legally valid.

    “It most certainly is for the government to provide incentives and disincentives. Do you argue that the child tax credit should go away?”

    Of course not! The child tax credit is not an incentive to reproduce or a disincentive to childlessness (would it be logical to “punish” infertile people or those people who choose to remain childless?), it protects our right to property from oppressive taxation.

    Those of us who are responsible to provide material support for dependents have a right to this relief due to the extra burdens we have in providing for them.

    For the same reason, there is also a tax credit for those who care for adults who are unable to care for themselves.

    Now, Constitutionally speaking, social engineering of any sort is unconstitutional because it is a form of tyranny. The purpose of our laws is the protection and defense of the civil and human rights of the people, not to provide incentives/disincentives for/against certain choices, actions and behaviors.

    Besides, isn’t social engineering usually promoted and defended by contemporary liberals rather than traditional conservatives? Or do you consider yourself to be more of a neo-conservative, Mr. Bambenek?

  • gonzo marx

    John B. sez…
    *The 10 Commandments weren’t some manmade invention.*

    now there is a prime Postulate proclamation!

    apostate and heretic that i am…might i suggest the Quoted statement cannot either be proven nor disproven…

    we return you to your regularily scheduled programming…

    Excelsior!

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Margaret-

    I’m really done with this. If you are going to insist what is demonstrably false, a position shared by no Supreme Court Judge, legislature, or executive, and insist it is true, then there is no point to continue here.

    The law is clear. They have the right to life, yes, and the corollaries associated with it (free from abuse, for instance).

    Beyond that, parents exercise the child’s liberty rights and the pursuit of happiness rights. Period.

    I’m not going to entertain your incorrect notions of scripture anymore either. Lots of sin is also crime and vice versa. But here’s my final exegesical study on the matter.

    The verse goes something like, don’t try to remove the speck in your neighbors eye until you remove the speck in your own.

    It doesn’t say, remove your own and stop. It says remove your own, and then remove your neighbors.

    Scripture is full of examples of correcting of sinners. That is simply impossible if you can’t judge what is good and what is bad.

    It is perfectly acceptable to say what classes of behaviors are sins and what aren’t. But more importantly to this conversation, at what point did I express any moral judgement on this?

    The answer is, I didn’t. You assumed I did, and I didn’t correct you immediately.

    The fact remains, two people having sex does nothing for society. Two people agreeing to have sex exclusively for life does nothing for society.

    Having children is of supreme importance for a society to survive. That is the social good recognized in marriage, an institution formed primarily for the good of children, not of spouses.

    If you wish to change it, I posit we get rid of legal recognition and benefits that go along with marriage all together then, because it would then be a pointless institution.

    You could argue that heterosexual marriage is social engineering of the legislature, if the institution was somehow created by them. It’s been this way for thousands of years. I’m merely saying that if we are going to have these discussions we should decide what we want marriage to be first.

  • http://www.landofthefreehomeofthebrave.org/wp/ Margaret Romao Toigo

    Mr. Bambenek, I thank you for our time together here, it was most interesting and enlightening.

    Peace be with you.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    You could also say all this scripture stuff has no place in any serious political discussion…

  • gonzo marx

    Christopher,

    i will have ta Respectfully disagree…

    if you think about History…you will find that one could Argue that a Majority of Conflict in “western” and “middle-eastern” cultures have revolved around “scripture” and the differences in Interpertation and acceptance of which scriptural Sources are “allowed” to dictate Dogma

    from the Schism between step-brothers that began the Conflict between Hebrew and Muslim…another between those two considering someone a Prophet as opposed to Christianity’s view of the same person as Messiah… pre-Constantinian war among the “christians”:”catholic” versus ” the 5 heresies”…post-Constantinian conversion/expansion leading to the Crusades and eventually Martin Luther and the Protestant Schism (toss in the Anglican break there)…

    on and on

    War tends to be fought more in “western” cultures for these differing Interpertations of these “Books” than for just territorial or resource control…even simple Expansionist policies

    those have happened, of course…but often tied to the “scriptural” in one way or the other

    i do find it very fascinating that such is not the case in Eastern histories…pretty consistently their wars are about Conquest and/or territorial and resource Control…

    i tend to find it quite telling as well as strangely Enlightening to see these various Examples of an Individual’s internal Logic and Rationale in the political arena and have the underlying dogmatic foundations for the Process Exposed as well

    but i’m weird that way…

    Excelsior!

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    I grant you the historical stuff, gonzo. How about scripture stuff should never have been allowed into politics and remaining traces need removing?

  • http://breathoffreshink.blogspot.com Chris Evans

    The point is that a college, (particularly a Law School in the case of Rumsfeld v. FAIR) an institution that is supposed to be free of discrimination (and a Law school in particular that TEACHES the Constitution) should not be endorsing an organization that does not treat all of the students equally. How hypocritical is it for a law school that is supposed to teach people the importance of Equality and Free Speech to endorse the U.S. Military that discriminates against gays?

  • gonzo marx

    Christopher sez…
    *How about scripture stuff should never have been allowed into politics and remaining traces need removing?*

    /agree

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!