User talk:Atlant/Archive 3

This is an archive of my Talk page containing the 2005/2006 ACLU "discussions".

The current page is, of course, located at User talk:Atlant, as per usual.

---

The ACLU: One man's promise

This is for all of you seditious America-hating, baby-killing, communist, queer mafia-endorsing, self-indulgent, child porn-loving, thought-policing, communist, perverted, inciteful, Christian-hating, Jew-hating, Jihad, morally blind, dispicable, detestable, American and British soldier-killing, pansies: Your days are numbered.

But then again, you, 64.219.130.251 are an anonymous coward while I at least have the courage of my convictions to reveal myself here on Wikipedia. I guess that will make it easier for you to hunt me down, huh?

I think I'll copy your comment to my user page so there will be no doubt about where I stand on the issues. :-)

Atlant 15:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous coward? That's the voice of most of America speaking to you right now. You'd have to be completely deaf, dumb, and blind not to realize that. But you don't care in the least bit. You have your own insidious agenda to fulfill. Let me ask you something, comrade Atlant, while you are so prideful of your own insanity: what is it about America that you hate so much? Why do you insist on perverting the true meaning of freedom - the freedom that so many men have died to preserve? You have spat on their graves and pissed on their crosses, yet you are proud of that. Your organization has ruined the lives and traditions of countless numbers of hard-working, Christian Americans, and defended homeless drugatics and child molesters. Shame on you! You believe that you uphold the Constitution, but instead distort its words and turn everything it stands for on its head. Is that not a good example of cowardice? I am being rigid with you because its what you deserve. If I had said that under my username, I would come under fire for being politically incorrect. Who created political correctness? I know that the ACLU thrives on what it deems to be "politically correct." It seems that Wikipedia also shares that curse. So why should I tell you who I am? I speak for the America that you live to bring to its knees. How's that for anonymity? You'd better think real hard about a lot of things, pal, because one day, you will be dust just like everyone else. 65.69.71.169 02:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Bravoe user 65.69.71.169, I totally agree with you.

If I had said that under my username, I would come under fire for being politically incorrect.

Ahh, so you admit you're an anonymous coward. Well, at least you can see some of your own limitations.

By the way, are you familiar with the fact that the ACLU occasionally defends Christians in freedom-of-religion cases?

Atlant 13:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That is only occasionally, and it works harder to dislodge the religion Chrisianity from even being mentioned than it does protecting it. The ACLU is definitely more left-winged than right and you are unwilling to see this.

In extremely rare cases, the ACLU litigates in favor of Christians, but this is no more than a scapegoat to temporarily silence the latter so that your low-degree attourneys can continue their ruthless backstabbing.

Don't try and rationalize with me. If the ACLU had it their way, every Christian symbol in the country would be stricken down. You know this. The Silent Majority 15:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I assure you that the ACLU has no position on the display of crosses by churches (or stars and crescents on mosques or Stars of David on synagogues, or any combination of those things on your private property). We do have a position on crosses displayed on public property (that is, property owned by all of us including Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Atheists, and Pastafarians) and that is that you can't do it. It's in the Constitution; tough break. (Note that I've Wikilinked to it in case you've never read it; the specific part you'll be looking for is called Amendment One in the Bill of Rights.) But if you don't want to deal in rationalism, you're right, we should stop talking and you can go back to trying to force a Christian faith-based theocracy down the throats of us all. Perhaps rather than the Constitution, you'd prefer to read about Christian Exodus?

By the way, you don't seem to be silent and I assure you that theocrats like you are not the American majority, even if you do steal an election now and again. And given that you seem to have created your self-admitted sockpuppet identity just to post here in my talk page, I still think you're an anonymous coward. Why aren't you enlisting instead of editing?

Atlant 17:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, fellow baby killer! :)

Hey, just wanted to say that you dealt with that er, enlightened fellow (this guy) above with great verve. Very cool.--Sean Black | Talk 21:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I was actually considering telling him that he misunderestimated me and the situation was even worse than he assumed, namely, I'm busy trying to learn to speak French and I've actually been to other countries including the PRC, but I decided that simply memorializing him was enough. ;-)

Atlant 15:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sexual Preference and Politics

I removed the following:

I'm also a member of the Board of Directors of the NHCLU, the New Hampshire local affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. This apparently provoked the following rant from an anonymous coward (which you can still see on my talk page):

The ACLU: One man's promise

This is for all of you seditious America-hating, baby-killing, communist, queer mafia-endorsing, self-indulgent, child porn-loving, thought-policing, communist, perverted, inciteful, Christian-hating, Jew-hating, Jihad, morally blind, dispicable, detestable, American and British soldier-killing, pansies: Your days are numbered.

I think posting this is bringing about a lot of unwanted attention and isn't really what Wikipedia is to be used for. Hopefully this action will reduce the number of attacks regarding your sexual preference, and politics. I don't really understand what the message says but it contains a lot of key words that attract hate mongers (Jew-hating for example).

71.192.58.19

I've reverted your change. Wikipedia, just like the rest of America (and the world?) is full of right-wing nutcases and there's nothing to be gained by hiding the hateful, ignorant views of these people and the sorts of hit-and-run bullying attacks that they find so tasty. The only cure for these sorts of views is to bring them into the light.

Atlant 22:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

But is an encyclopedia an appropriate place for airing your grievances toward the idiot members of one political side or another? I mean, it would be nearly too easy for anyone to provoke a teenaged twit from the left or the right to make a drive-by rambling. What good does it REALLY do to "bring them into the light?" It cures nothing. It only contributes further to the sort of hyper-partisanism that makes so many think that Pat Robertson is emblematic of the Right.

RollingSkull 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User pages, of course, aren't the encyclopedia. ;-)

Atlant 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case. I must admire the troll. He certainly maintains an ENORMOUS list of grievances. A lesser man wouldn't keep such a list at hand... but not him.

RollingSkull 04:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I take your point, and if the NeoCon/PaleoCon types stop stopping by to try and re-educate/save/whatever me, I'll be happy to move all this to another archive adjunct to my talk page. But right now, we in America seem to have a surfeit of people who want to make the entire world some sort of White, bad-English-speaking, Christian paradise and I think they need to be exposed to the rest of the world.

But I'm still hopeful. One of our posters here seems to like to boast of his hatred of the French; maybe the EU will someday get tired of our worldwide beligerance and bellicosity and depose our current government in favor of a democracy? You know, with elections where we actually count the votes, act on the principles espoused in our Constitution, and stuff? ;-)

Atlant 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

I was wondering - seeing that you are a member of the ACLU, you may or may not be familiar with a dilemma which occurred fairly recently in San Francisco regarding a play entitled "Cootie Shots." An ACLU staff attourney by the name of Julia Harumi (probably from your district) served in the defense of the school district that was being sued by the parents of many of the children who had attended the play.

OK, since you are a member, I am going to assume that you know exactly what I am talking about. My question, therefore, is this: if the ACLU supposedly represents the will of the people, then what was the purpose of their involvement in this case? Of course, the parents, being insufficiently funded and short of manpower, were defeated. Nonetheless, it was perfectly clear that many of them felt that their religious beliefs as well as their constitutionally defined parental rights had been infringed upon, and rightly so! I mean, their kids had been forced through a mandatory indoc session without any prior notice whatsoever. Is it just me, or is something slightly wrong with this picture?

It's difficult for me to understand the precise logic and true motive(s) of your organization. Whenever I hear about the ACLU, they are always running to the defense of abortions, pornography, the gay agenda, and even matters as gruesome as partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, and pedophilia. You say that you speak for the freedoms of all, but it is quite clear that you are bent on advancing the "freedoms" of a select few, while contrarily trampling on the freedoms of most Americans.

Guys like The Silent Majority are just fed up, that's all. They're defending what they hold closest to their hearts, perhaps in a way that you see as ruthless or radical. I suppose that that simple analysis may be slightly irrelevant from a philosophical perspective, since wars have often been fought based upon ideals, albeit what the two opposing sides hold dear to their own hearts. I myself try to be more objective - after all, there are two sides to every argument.

In these difficult times, it's disheartening to see Americans at each other's throats like this. Please, humor me by engaging yourself. I have many questions about much of the recent legal history of the ACLU, and would be very much obliged to have them answered by an official member of the organization itself. If this is not the appropriate place for my questions, or if you are not interested, I will understand. Thank you for your patience. CustosMorum 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Thanks for writing!

It's difficult for me to understand the precise logic and true motive(s) of your organization.

The ACLU's motive is always pretty simple: Defend the principles enunciated within the United States Constitution.

This, unfortunately, is often painful. For examples, lets take several points in the First Amendment:

• Free Speech. Free Speech means just that; anyone pretty much has a right to speak publicly whatever comes to their minds, no matter how distasteful that speech may be to others. So when Nazis want to march through Skokie, Illinois, a true reading of the First Amendment's free speech provision means that the government should let them do it, because they have just as much right to their speech as you have to yours.

• Freedom from government endorsing a religion. The government can not endorese a religion. It's for this reason that the ACLU occasionally joins a lawsuit protesting some sort of Christian-only memorialization of Christmas when that memorialization is supported by the government (such as being located on the grounds of a city hall or statehouse or involving a bunch of public school kids singing a holiday concert that somehow ends up containing only Christian hymns). But we'd be just as sure to join a suit that sought to block, say, a Jewish-only memorialization of Hannukah or any other such activity; we just never get the chance because those religions typically aren't busy trying to use public venues to proselytise the way that fundamentalist Christians are these days.

You say that you speak for the freedoms of all, but it is quite clear that you are bent on advancing the "freedoms" of a select few, while contrarily trampling on the freedoms of most Americans.

You never hear about it on Right-Wing talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh, but the ACLU doesn't take politics into consideration when deciding what cases to join. For example, we've actually helped defend Rush in his attempt to avoid jail for his abuse of Oxycontin[1]. We've also joined Christian groups when they are being unjustly persecuted.

Here in the NHCLU (where I am a board member), we spend a fair amount of time on prisoner issues, trying to assure that the State of New Hampshire provides adequate medical care for prisoners, doesn't try to warehouse them in wildly-inappropriate settings (mixing the truly violent with the merely dope-smoking, etc.), and the like. We also defend the usual free-speech issues such as making sure that people trying to legitimately exercise their right to protest George W. Bush aren't forced to be a half-mile from his venue while Bush's supporters are allowed to line up for the TV cameras right outside the venue.

None of this stuff is predicated on what the majority, silent or otherwise wants. Under our system of government, that simply isn't supposed to be a factor in determining who gets rights. If anything, the enumeration of rights is precisely to avoid the Tyranny of the Majority. The majority should not be able to decide, for example, that you, CustosMorum, or anyone else, have no right to speak out, or no right to be able to question witnesses called against you in a legal procedding, or that you may be tortured to obtain a "confession" of some made-up crimes.

Remember, if you ignore your rights, they'll go away. And just because you aren't using a right right now doesn't mean you'll never need it.

Again, thanks for writing, and if you really do care about your rights, perhaps you'll make a contribution to your local ACLU affiliate?

Atlant 12:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Round 2

Well you're quite welcome, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond! I agree with you that interpretation can indeed be a painful process, and I think that we can also agree that it is unquestionably a subjective endeavor.

Free Speech means just that; anyone pretty much has a right to speak publicly whatever comes to their minds, no matter how distasteful that speech may be to others.

• There is no derivitave analysis more vague than this of the meaning of freedom of speech. I wonder what would happen if all Christians interpreted the Bible as literally as the ACLU interprets freedom of speech. Our government would be overthrown and replaced with a theocracy, and all the homosexuals, adulterers, prostitutes, etc., etc. would be stoned. It's a damn shame that our forefathers weren't more specific while writing our Bill of Rights. Leaves a lot of room for misinterpretation, don't you think?

Also, wouldn't that, in some cases, compromise the security and/or well-being of the people? What if many Americans want their kids to be able to turn on a computer without being exposed to vivid pornographic images? How do you expect a child's mind to react to extremely violent movies? Their subconscious absorbs anything and everything like a sponge and their very lives can be molded through the retention of those influences. That is a proven scientific fact.

There are so many instances where such a dubious interpretation can be the cause of absolute disorder and chaos. I would hate to be a teacher in a world where anyone could say anything they wanted at mere impulse. Sedition would also be another big problem (already is) because blatant, internal subversion would endanger our fighting forces by encouraging our enemies.

Freedom from government endorsing a religion. The government can not endorese a religion.

• "That all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."

Well, they endorsed it there.

• "It would be unbecoming of the representatives of theis nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and imploring his blessing...Here, and throughout our country, may simple manners, pure morals, and true religion flourish forever."

There's one of the 'Founding Fathers' (Adams) making it pretty clear that he is not only endorsing some form of a monotheistic religion, but leading his colleagues to join in his reverence.

Need I say more? Hundreds of references to God can be found in our Constitution alone. This is so strange, and I am not being sarcastic - but, I truly do not understand this logic that you have shown me.

• In regard to Rush Limbaugh - I am not a fan of his, but that sounds like the ACLU was pulling a little political stunt. I could be wrong, of course.

• Bush has many MANY enemies right now. If I were the president, I wouldn't let an angry mob anywhere near me either. That is a matter of presidential security if I am not mistaken.

• The role that you have just told me your New Hampshire division plays for convicts is something that I do support. On the other hand, you have to be sure that the prisoners aren't too comfortable in prison! It is prison, after all. Thanks, CustosMorum 04:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Need I say more? Hundreds of references to God can be found in our Constitution alone.

Show me one. Then we can talk. That you make this claim makes me suspect you've never actually read the Constitution.

Atlant 17:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Round 3

My apologies - you are right on that one. No, to be honest with you, I have not read the entire Constitution word for word since high school. However, I do know that there are references to 'Almighty God' in the preambles of a number of State Constitutions.

Thank you for your correction! I would still like to know what you think about the rest of my rebuttals, if possible.

CustosMorum 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Firstly, I'd strongly suggest rereading the United States Constitution. It's not very long, and it's very interesting reading, especially in these times. The Amendments, of course, are where a lot of the action is.

Here's a handy link to it:

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html

Now, on to your points:

There is no derivitave analysis more vague than this of the meaning of freedom of speech. I wonder what would happen if all Christians interpreted the Bible as literally as the ACLU interprets freedom of speech. Our government would be overthrown and replaced with a theocracy, and all the homosexuals, adulterers, prostitutes, etc., etc. would be stoned.

Gee, I kinda thought this was the intent of a lot of the folks on the Religious Right. Certainly when one listens to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or hears the statements by (for example) Focus on the Family or Concerned Women for America one gets the impression that they are trying to impose what is essentially a Christian Theocracy here in the United States.

But your argument doesn't really speak to my point about free speech. Either you are willing to tolerate speech you find distasteful or you run the risk of someone else shutting you up because they find you distasteful.

Also, wouldn't that, in some cases, compromise the security and/or well-being of the people?

Perhaps. Or maybe it would just expose powerful idiots to public embarrassment. Ben Franklin either coined or quoted the phrase "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" and it's just as true today as it was in his day. Somehow, our government managed to survive 225 years without all the rampant trampling on the Constitution that the Bush administration has done in just five years.

What if many Americans want their kids to be able to turn on a computer without being exposed to vivid pornographic images?

I don't know about you, but I manage to spend a lot of time on the Internet without accidentally stumbling across "vivid pornographic images". Perhaps such parents need to better-supervise their kids' activities (or stop watching that pornography themselves so it's not in their browser's cache/history lists?).

How do you expect a child's mind to react to extremely violent movies?

I don't know; why don't you ask all those parents who dragged their kids to see The Passion of the Christ? That was a prime example of simulated snuff porn, exactly the sort of thing I think you're worried about.

Bush has many MANY enemies right now. If I were the president, I wouldn't let an angry mob anywhere near me either.

Most of his enemies, of course, he created for himself. (He's also created many new enemies for our entire country, but that's another debate.) Curiously, though, even though lots of people hated Bill Clinton (to the point of issuing frequent death threats!), he never needed to set up so-called free speech zones to ensure that he never saw any protestors. (Yes, I know what the Wiki lede says, but I never observed a free-speech zone around Clinton, but have personally been the victim of several of them around Bush.) And that's who we're talking about: not violent people who might harm the President but simply loud, expressive people who disagree strongly with his opinions -- THOSE are the folks who are being kept far, far away from him.

Atlant 14:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Round 4

Labeling The Passion of the Christ as a snuff porn film is highly inappropriate. The film itself is an accurate historical representation, and depicts a highly sacred event that forged one of the oldest, enduring religions of today. Had it been created as mere entertainment, then more Christians would have been offended, and the simple truth is that most Christians accepted and realized its well-intended purpose. I find it highly ironic that someone who "frequently sides with Christians" and stands for a somewhat altered view of freedom of religion is so opposed to a depiction of a historical figure who was brutally murdered for His religious views. That would be an understatement to most Christians. Perhaps it offended you because of a deeper, more obscure reason? I don't know. Anyway, I've recently completed some research on the ACLU, deriving therein the following conclusions:

• I'm still unclear as to the source of a large portion of your funding. This is a very questionable area, especially since the ACLU claims to be a non-profit organ. Such an ambiguity could, in the future, render the ACLU prosecutable under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

• The majority of the ACLU's members claim to be atheist or agnostic. Thus, it is not only understandable that many Christians and Jews feel threatened, (including many who are entirely unrelated to a fundamentalist sect or attitude,) but may also in truth be reasonable. Keep in mind, sir, that political fundamentalism is just as identifiable and dangerous as is religious fundamentalism.

• During the past thirty or so years, the ACLU has executed a radical departure from the general, pre-established interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Their chosen battles are a prime testimony to their role as an activist organization.

I wouldn't give a cent to the ACLU. They remind me too much of the Nazi brown shirts. What really worries me is that I was just about to do that. I thought "wow, an organization devoted to civil rights!" How misleading of you!!!!!!!!!!!!CustosMorum 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Wow! Are you having a bad day or something?

The film itself is an accurate historical representation, ...

Prove it.

I'm still unclear as to the source of a large portion of your funding

We file all the expected reports for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations; you're free to peruse them. But in brief, our funding comes from donors, both individuals and charitable foundations. But if you're still "not clear", feel free to talk to you local prosecutor(s).

Thus, it is not only understandable that many Christians and Jews feel threatened,

Ahh, the ever-popular "Judeo-Christian" rap that Christians like to invoke any time they're feeling lonely. But in reality, I think you'll find that many Jews are just as threatened as your average ACLU member by the growing rise of Christian Fundamentalism in this country. In fact, many Jews are your average ACLU member as are many Christians, Moslems, Bahai, etc. etc., so your claims about us being majority atheist or agnostic may not be supportable in fact; got any citations? Or are you just making shit up? I know that if I look at my own board, it doesn't support your contention.

In any case, thanks for proving that I'm making the right decision in keeping all these attacks around on my talk page. If there are any brown shirts being worn, I'm pretty sure it's not by me. (I look better in black, BTW.)

Atlant 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Round 5

Dude, honestly, I don't care what color you look good in. You're out of your twisted little mind. I'm not going to fight with you anymore because it's a waste of time. The ACLU has ushered in a radical transformation from our national origins, ignorant of who and what our country was built from. Don't give me this crap about there's growing Christian fundamentalism. I'm a Christian, and I respect it and all other religions as long as they don't breed hate. Not even the Christian fundamentalists are breeding hate (except maybe from you). It's the mad, screaming lesbians in San Francisco, the burning churches in the South, the disparaging and ridicule for Christians that oozes out of CNN that gets me up and moving in the morning. That's where the hate comes from pal.

Hey, Mr. "Free Speech, even if it offends someone else" - is this [2] what we can expect when we get no-strings-attached freedom of speech? Man, a lot of innocent people are going to lose their lives because of some stupid cartoons that got the Muslims pretty worked up. I sure as hell don't want that happening in my country. Why don't you just move to Denmark? At least you won't have to worry about fundamentalist Christians - they're not the ones that want to chop your head off and scream 'Allah Akbar,' or blow you to smitherines anyway. Or perhaps you would rather join them in their perpetual war with Christians and Jews? You're such an idiot. I'm laughing so hard right now I think I'm going to puke! Whatever - go do what you do. I'm through. CustosMorum 03:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

---

You're out of your twisted little mind.

You're such an idiot.

You might want to read WP:CIV before you get yourself in trouble; I'd hate to see your free-speech rights abridged by the rather-more-restrictive rules of this privately-owned and operated site. The First Amendment doesn't apply here, after all.

I'm a Christian

You know, when you told me about the "200 references [to God]" in our Constitution, I kinda guessed that. :-)

With regard to the cartoons, religious fundamentalism goes hand-in-hand with intolerance and the urge to censor all speech that doesn't support one's particular deity, and you've provided quite a few examples of this right here. Remember, you started this by asking me what I thought about Cootie Shots; do you not find it the least bit ironic that this is yet another example of religious extremists trying to shout down the truth because it doesn't agree with their particular theology? Shall I take this moment to remind you of the young Nazi in New Bedford, Massachusetts who just shot up the gay bar? Do you think he might have been better helped by the messages of tolerance contained in Cootie Shots rather than the messages he was obviously receiving?

At least you won't have to worry about fundamentalist Christians - they're not the ones that want to chop your head off and scream 'Allah Akbar,' or blow you to smitherines anyway.

Odd you should say that. When I'm at pro civil-rights, anti-war, or anti-Bush demonstrations, the people who drive by and shout things like "Why don't you get a job, you f****n' f****t!" (even though I'm standing next to my wife and don't look jobless) don't appear in the least bit Arabic or Islamic. Believe me, I've met actual people from most of the world including the Arabic Middle East, Israel, and Iran and these folks hanging out their car windows don't resemble Middle Easterners at all! Among other things, as my quote shows, they're not as well-spoken.

Whatever - go do what you do. I'm through.

Promise?

Atlant 13:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Another anonymous coward checks-in

I firmly believe that the silent majority is a ligitimate majority. It goes on the principle that its bark is worse than its bite (Curtius Rufus). If the majority of Americans were to express their views, I believe it would show that the ACLU is clearly in the minority. What is unfortunate is that most Americans listen to this left-wing bull from CNN and ABC and take it for the majority and do not act on their beliefs. So the media is an instrumental weapon in the liberals back pocket to silence the majority voice in the United States. It is all about Operation Smokescreen. LordRevan

Anyone who believes that CNN and ABC represent the views of the liberals rather than the views of the management of those giant media corporations clearly doesn't share my view of reality. I certainly hope you're not teaching a current events class with your view of the media or a citizenship class with your view of the Constitution; it would be pretty unfair to the fine kids of Washington State!

Atlant 12:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your rantings sound more and more despotic every day! The way that those media organizations endorse the ACLU is sickening. Why would that be unfair to the kids? You people push your tolerance-laden filth down their throats far more often! Salva 17:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do none of you folks read WP:CIV and WP:NPA? Or do you all just figure it doesn't apply to you as long as you're "cur[ing] the mental disorder known as liberalism" and "help[ing] America realise and restore her Christian heritage"?

Atlant 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh stop it you big cry baby. I've read all of the aforementioned, and you're (atlant) just as guilty of political ranting (which includes the occasional personal attack) as anyone else. Of course it's not really a mental disorder. Don't attack my beliefs and I won't attack yours, capiche? Salva 19:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You apparently can't say anything without invoking a personal attack. That's okay, it's what I would have expected of you.

Atlant 19:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you did the same thing with me with the anonymous coward thing. You claim to be above us, but yet you still do the same thing that we do. LordRevan 02:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

One difference, of course, is that I would never level the claim of anonymous coward against a person who is actually identifiable beyond an IP address, but when you first posted this, you didn't even go that far! Rather than sign this with your IP address (164.116.107.39), you didn't sign your posting at all! I would think that would have to be an action anyone would associate with an anonymous coward, wouldn't you? It was only after I traced your post back to the Washington State public school internet consortium that you thought better of it, created a username, and edited your post ex post facto to hide your original anonymity. (After you admitted you were from Washington and then rapidly edited that back out again.)

Even so, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and woul no longer refer to you as an anonymous coward. But you on the other hand (along with the rest of the "conservative" folks who seem to gravitate to my talk page), continue to use offensive language in every post ("crybaby", "ranting", "mental disorder", etc.). At this point, I have to assume you do this because of the content of your character.

Atlant 12:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For your information, at the time I had posted this discussion, I had not signed on as a user. This discussion actually compelled me to create a user name. LordRevan 17:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay.

Atlant 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

LordRevan 17:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to actually be talking to me here so I've removed your ever-growing quote collection from my talk page; I'm not obligated to host what is essentially your graffiti, erudite-sounding though it may be. You can put all this on your own user or talk pages.

Atlant 12:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ACLU Hypocricy

HOw about it A, since I see from you home page that you are a Boston area resident and an ACLU member, you surely must be more aware than you indicate of the controversy over the public giveaway of Boston public land to a Mosque; if you aren't aware of this, why not spend an hour or so today and find out WHY the ACLU refused to intervene in the lawsuit - and then why don't YOU edit the ACLU article to reflect on this matter?Incorrect 13:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's worse than that; a close reading of my user page would show you that I'm not just an card-carrying ACLU member, I'm also a member of the Board of Directors of the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union. This doesn't mean, of course, that I follow closely the actions of the Mass CLU, but sure, I'm aware of the mosque debate. I'm also aware of the second question I asked you (which you chose not to answer): 2) Must the ACLU take up every cause that strikes the fancy of its opponents? Surely you realize that the answer is "No". And I suspect that if you looked back in history, you'd find that plenty of Christian churches and probably even a few synagogues have also benefited from underpriced land, so it seems odd that you'd be concerned about a mosque now benefitting. Why would the ACLU take up the question of the mosque benefitting when we apparently have never taken up the question of churches benefitting or synagogues benefitting? Given the state of America today, surely the opponents of the mosque can find some anti-Islamist organization to help in their activities? Surely they don't need the ACLU for this one?

Atlant 14:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A (and I don't intend to be uncivil, sometimes I find sarcasm too irresistable but that's probably a character flaw), you are correct that the ACLU can't take up every case; but the Boston matter isn't just about a creche during Christmas at a local city hall - it's about the granting of land worth a lot (depending on the source) either several hundred thousand or several million) at way below market value to help construct a Mosque. Surely the ACLU should marshall its forces for the big matters, yet it appears to have ignored the macro in favor of the trivial - that indicates the ACLU either lacks a sense of proportianality, or that is operates with bias [we present the facts, you decide.] And have churches and temples ever benefited from below land value deals? I'm sure they have, and I'm sure the ACLU would violently object if they were aware of the giveaways (as would I). So I'm the one who is consistent here, objecting to any giveaway of public land to any religious organization - it's the ACLU that seems to have different objectives depending on the religion involved. Isn't this the very definition of hyprocrisy?Incorrect 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I have no direct insight into what causes the Boards of the Mass CLU or ACLU National to decide to take up or not take up a given case, but there are several factors you might weigh here:

1. I don't know from whom the request to take up this case comes, but that would have impact on the decision. If the request appears to be coming from someone or some group that simply doesn't want a mosque or Muslims in their neighborhood, I doubt the CLU would take it up.
2. The question of "they fight creches, shouldn't they fight mosques?" isn't quite so clear-cut as you present it. Every year, the nation, the states, and cities and towns across the country give literally billions of dollars in subsides to various mainstream religions. They do this in the form of relief from taxes. It's not really so clear that anyone is extending all that much of a handout to the folks building the mosque. And the construction of the mosque might address positively other social problems in the area. By comparison, a crech instaled in front of a city hall is pretty blatantly allowing the proselytization of a single faith which also happens to be the overwhelming majority faith in this country.
3. Who knows what else is "on the plate" of the Mass CLU attorneys? As you know, if you folow the news, they've also just taken up the massive question of what to do about the (clearly-illegal under Mass state law) turning over of phone records to the NSA. And that's just the latest in a whole series of insults attributable to the USA PATRIOT Act.
4. Attorneys who do CLU work are often un-affiliated with the CLU and often work pro bono; perhaps there's no attorney who wants to take up this case?

Really, you're trying to use this case to beat up on the (A)CLU but you're not standing on firm ground. I might also point out that I left your other edit (about the gag rule being imposed on National board members) standing; I think you're much safer accusing us of hypocrisy on those grounds than on the grounds that we appear to not be willing to sue the Muslims over their mosque.

Atlant 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are relying on the one swallow does not a summer make argument: I will look for the occasional bird in the sky and when I find them I will revisit the issue. Thanks.Incorrect 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lynching Is What The KKK Does

The KKK is a terrorist organization, lynching is an important part of what they do. The picture belongs. Steven Argue (UTC)

Please do not question Atlant's judgement. He's an expert on what's vandalism and what isn't. --NEMT 01:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism was never part of the question, and Atlant never said it was. This has to do with a difference of opinion of what is best for the article. Steven Argue

Sorry, Atlant's word is law. --NEMT 11:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But lynching isn't what the ACLU does, and the fact that we defend the free-speech rights of everyone, even odious people does not imply in any way that we would defend the KKK's lynching of someone. If the picture belongs in this encyclopedia, then it belongs onthe KKK page, not the ACLU's page. You understand that it's never "easy" fress speech rights that are at issue, right? It's never the person saying "Hurray for President Bush!" who is shut-down, it's the person wearing the anti-Bush tee-shirt trying to get into an allegedly-public "Town hall meeting" being held on public property. Similarly, it isn't people sitting around singing Kumbaya, it's people suggesting that maybe we can't all live in peace together. That's why the ACLU ends up defending the free speech rights of people like the KKK and the Nazis as well as the kid who wants to wear a "No-Nazis" arm-band to school in violation of his school's dress code.

Atlant 11:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Are You Prejudiced Against Cubans?

Hi. A tortured Cuban, tortured by Castro's regime, who is also an author, writes a story about the ACLU and Banned Books that you keep removing from the ACLU page and the Censorship page, etc., using as the excuse "non-noteworthy," even though the subject is perfectly relevant to the wiki articles. Have you read the article? Do you know that the author is not noteworthy? Are you prejudiced against Cubans?

• The ACLU and Book Banning, by Humberto Fontova, author of "Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant," 13 July 2006

And you switch excuses for banning the information, ironically, from pages discussing how banning is bad. What's the deal? --SafeLibraries 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm prejudiced against people who would censor libraries under the weak excuse that they're keeping children safe. People like that are promoting ignorance in America and diminishing our stature and future prospects in the world at large. Know anybody like that? 'Cause people like that would probably be happier in Cuba where they probably do censor libraries.

Atlant 15:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly you haven't read the man's article. In a nutshell, he was tortured for many years by Castro's regime, escapes to the USA, has children, has grandchildren, then has his grandchildren reading in public schools books purchased with public funds about how idyllic and lovely is Papa Castro. Knowing the truth, actually bearing the scars, he thinks this is atrocious.

This has nothing to do with what you claim. Please read the article.

In fact the whole controvery is quite unique. Learn more about it before claiming Cubans are "not noteworthy." --SafeLibraries 04:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I did better than that. I read your website. And as I said, I'm prejudiced against censors.

Atlant 11:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)