Hi, Burgy,
Let's talk "rational discourse" first, then "ACLU double standard."
My original statement, which started all this, was "the ACLU's stated goal
is to *prevent* the teaching of a theory with which it disagrees." I agree
that the phrase "with which it disagrees" should be modified; the ACLU's
stated opposition is to the *teaching*, not to the theory. I stand by the
rest of the statement. This is irrelevant to our discussion, but if you can
show me an ACLU member who is a creationist, I'd like to meet that dude!
:-)
Your response to my statement was to ask for a cite. I gave one, which you
rejected for the following reasons:
<<<1. The 'public statement' is not by the ACLU, but by a third party.>>>
No. The statement was made for public consumption *by* a representative of
the ACLU, *speaking in that capacity*. What are you looking for, an amen
chorus composed of the entire ACLU membership? You also complained that I
"responded with a quotation from an unnamed journalist in an unspecified
issue on an unknown topic of the LA Times?" Jeeze, Burgy, I told you what
it was and where to find it. Johnson's book devotes several pages to the
Vista School Board controversy and the ACLU's role in it. I'm a two-finger
typist; do your own research :-) "?which by any rational person's use of
logic, did not justify [my] assertion." Wasn't trying to justify my
assertion; just giving you what you asked for - a cite. See 3. below.
<<<2. The statement refers to 'Biblical Creationism,' not 'Creationism.'>>>
Irrelevant. I repeat - the ACLU makes no distinction. In fact, the very
*basis* for ACLU opposition to the teaching of creationism is that it is
*inherently* religious. You objected to the observation that the ACLU
either regards the two as synonymous, or, if not, has never made a public
distinction. I haven't been around long, but I've never seen such a
distinction made even on the reflector. Tim Ikeda's recent post on this is
instructive; as Phil Johnson has pointed out ad infinitum, "scientific
creationism" doesn't exist because the scientific establishment has defined
it away. The ACLU merely carries the establishment's water. Do you *deny*
that the ACLU makes no distinction? If so, say so. If not, then this
objection fails (unless we must quibble over the difference between
"biblical" and "religious").
<<<3. Statement #2 [re: the ACLU's stated goal] generalizes from a specific
to the general.>>>
Not only wrong, but the exact opposite of right. My generalization is based
on half a lifetime of reading and the observation of numerous specifics.
*You asked* for "a source." I gave you what you asked for: one specific
instance *as an example*. I was moving *from* the general *to* the
specific. Do you want more specifics? Then ask. However, I would regard
this as another diversionary tactic. :-)
Now let's talk substance re the ACLU; here's what I believe:
1. I believe that *you and I both know* that the ACLU opposes the teaching
of any variety of creationism in the public schools; and that this
opposition extends to the presentation of extrabiblical evidence against
common descent or in favor of intelligent design.
2. I believe that *you and I both know* that the ACLU has a double standard
regarding free speech; specifically that "religious speech" should be more
restricted than generic speech. I have read either a transcript of a speech
or an article written by an ACLU legislative director whose name I can't
recall (I can find it if you won't take my word for it) which states
explicitly this double standard. Actually I seem to recall that this is
stated in your Policy Manual; you can look it up.
I would like an answer to this specific question: Are you personally aware
of a situation where the ACLU has attempted to suppress any type of speech
*other than religious speech*?
Note that I am not passing judgment on these positions; I'm just pointing
out their existence. We can debate their merits once we agree on their
existence or non-existence.
As I mentioned, I'm not a touch typist; this has taken me over an hour and
a half to crank out. If we're to pursue the discussion, let's cut to the
chase and deal with my original assertion as elaborated by points 1. and 2.
above, rather than engaging more semantical games of tag-you're-it.
Regards,
Chuck