After the Frisch affair, and the disclosure of personal information by websites on other topics, maybe a voluntary Bloggers Code of Ethics is needed.

……

Also, I m sure the suit in Delaware sought injunctive relief, just as Brown did, as well as the moolah.

Still struggling with English, as she is wrote and spoke, eh?

The answer at Jul 6th, 2006 at 3:16 pm was sufficient.

Sorry you weren’t satisfied. Oh, wait… No, I’m not!

“You arrogant wannabe Nazi prick” says it all, too, eh, Frank?

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

“Do you believe a community should be prevented from engaging in a religious practice by the ACLU?”
No, only by the courts and only when it is done to the exclusion of other religions.

“WRONG! The ACLU was not involved in Brown v Board of Education, the city of Topeka was not a tiny town in Delaware, and the suit was not designed to blackmail Topeka.”

Oh, you nailed me. I guess I expected you to have a basic knowledge of the case. Of course it wasn’t the ACLU, it was the NAACP. It had been looking for the perfect case to take to the Supreme Court. I was likening the strategies they used. And Brown was most certainly used to “blackmail” Topeka to conform to the constitution and the law. (I wish I didn’t have to use your unfortunate language but I’m willing to play the game to deal with the bigger point, which I would never expect you or pedro to ever do because it requires knowledge of history and intellectual honesty.) But bravo in avoiding the issue.

“For the record, if all the people in a city voted to ban a family (whatever that means) I would be opposed.”

What about being allowed to harrass someone until they want to leave? I know it’s a hypothetical but that’s grownups explore issues and theories. Please try to not avoid the issue.

“Who cares? Fear is fear.”

You’re the one who is trying to assign guilt or fault for the causing of fear. Guilt or fault follows someone being wronged.

“Do you need English language lessons? The hypothetical question related to the Civil Rights era. My response was,  It isn t the Civil Rights era. You got a problem with that? Or do you think we re living in the mid – 50 s?
My little clock in the corner of the computer says July 6, 2006.”

Don’t get snippy when you’re the one who missed the basic point of what I was saying. But thanks for telling me about your computer. AGain, why does it matter if a bad act happens in 1950 or 2006?

“What about those intervening decades absolves people of their responsibility to not harrass people?
Nothing”

Oh, so you did get my point and you agree with me. Why did you act like a dick and challenge MY english abilities?

Thanks for again exposing yourself to the rest of us as a shallow, uninformed person. Say hi to Pedro for me.

the other family in the lawsuit is going by the name of “Doe” because they also fear harm.
And, the ACLU was not originally involved in the suit until MUCH later, long after it was filed. Their website even spells out, “we’re not involved.”

and what the burning WTC has to do with this, I don’t know. Other than showing that ANY kind of fanatical religiousity leads to evil.
If you think the town’s actions were right, maybe you need to move to Iran, since you seem to support theocracy.

Where do I begin?

How about this?

Um, yeah, that s pretty much the central point in every civil rights issue throughout the entire history of mankind.
Starting with the snarky “Um” you then saunter off into cloudcuckooland. Civil rights are not about fear. They are about — wait for it — the rights of citizens!
Do they have a right?
Are they free to exercize that right? Period.

The only fear I see is the fear that they will lose the ability to use the government to illegally enforce their bigotry.
Practicing your own religion is not bigotry. The right to practice your own religion, unencumbered by government, is a protected right in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. The right to be assured that no one practices a religion that you don’t like, around you, is not. Period.

Do you believe a community should be allowed to exclude people from their community based on religion?
Do you believe a community should be prevented from engaging in a religious practice by the ACLU?

Not relevant. Afterall, that is exactly how Brown v. Board came about. Are we supposed to excuse the harrassment if the vast majority are harrassers and the ACLU was vigilant in its watchdog capacity?
WRONG! The ACLU was not involved in Brown v Board of Education, the city of Topeka was not a tiny town in Delaware, and the suit was not designed to blackmail Topeka.

Again, do you believe that if 7700 people all agreed to ban a single person from living in a town based on religion (or race, etc..) they should be allowed to?
That isn’t what happened. For the record, if all the people in a city voted to ban a family ( whatever that means) I would be opposed.

First of all, you need a wrong to find fault. What would the wrong be here?
That I was made afraid by the smoke from Ground Zero or the very existence of Indian Point. Who cares? Fear is fear. “I’m afraid — you fix it” is the liberal formula, isn’t it?

You are literally making the argument that the simple passage of time is something that should be considered when thinking about discrimination.
Do you need English language lessons? The hypothetical question related to the Civil Rights era. My response was, “It isn’t the Civil Rights era. You got a problem with that? Or do you think we’re living in the mid – 50’s?
My little clock in the corner of the computer says July 6, 2006.

What about those intervening decades absolves people of their responsibility to not harrass people?
Nothing

Gee, that was fun

Pedro,
Wrong about what? Your lack of clarity is as annoying as your dishonesty.