<<<Thus Chuck is, it seems to me, doing what one does normally in the real
world--taking an organization at its word and drawing a rational conclusion
about it.
Without slicing and dicing to the point that linguistic coherence becomes a
bad dream, what part of that is so hard to understand?>>>
To which I would add, to Burgy,
In all the bandying of words, you haven't addressed my basic point, which
was the ACLU's double standard on the free speech issue: advocacy of
virtually unlimited free speech (hence support for neo-Nazis, KKK, etc.),
unless it's what the ACLU deems to be *religious* speech. So far as I know,
the ACLU has never attempted to suppress *any* type of speech other than
religious speech.
Chuck