Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Glib’s Latest STACLU Stupidity

Our old pal Glib Fortuna is back with yet another idiotic post about the ACLU, in which he manages to misunderstand a court ruling while simultaneously engaging in the single dumbest anti-ACLU argument in existence. The headline screams:

ACLU’s Favorite Hate Cult Can’t Attack Families at Heroes’ Funerals

This may be the all time most ridiculous slur against the ACLU, the notion that if they defend a group they must agree with that group. Nothing could be further from the truth and only an idiot or a demagogue – Glib, take your pick – would make such a claim. The ACLU is strongly pro-gay rights, for crying out loud. Does Glib really think they like or agree with the uber-bigot Fred Phelps? If he does, he’s an idiot; if he doesn’t, he’s a demagogue. It really is that simple.

The fact is that the ACLU often defends the rights of those they find loathsome, which is exactly what they should do (and I do the same, quite often). Because they recognize that if the first amendment was written precisely to defend unpopular ideas; no other idea requires such protection. Here’s a great example of why Glib’s slur is such nonsense: Vic Walczak. Vis is the legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, known to readers of this blog as co-counsel in the Dover case.

But that’s not the only case he’s ever had. Vic has also, on many occasions, defended the free speech rights of the KKK and other neo-nazi groups. Why is this significant? Because Vic is a Polish Jew who knows the horrors of Naziism first hand. His grandmother died at Treblinka. His grandfather, a violinist, wasn’t killed; they just surgically removed the tendons from his bowing hand so he could never play again. Yet by Glib’s reasoning, the neo-nazis whose rights he has defended must be his “favorite groups”. This is more than stupidity; it’s stupidity on roller skates. The ACLU only has one true client and it’s the bill of rights; which group happens to be benefiting from its application is irrelevant.

Glib also gets his facts wrong. The court did not rule on the case yet, only on a motion for a preliminary injunction. The fact that the judge won’t grant a preliminary injunction does not mean the law is constitutional or that the ACLU won’t win the case. And isn’t it interesting how, to the right, the Phelps gang only became this horrible “hate cult” when they started protesting the funerals of soldiers? They did the same thing at the funerals of gay people for years before they started protesting at military funerals, with nary a peep from the religious right. What a coinkydink that is.

Comments

  1. #1 gwangung
    February 1, 2007

    So, remember….contribute to Glib’s show so it can stay on the air…

  2. #2 Greg
    February 1, 2007

    I’m semi-banned from that blog, but it’s interesting to note his response to the abortion comparison (the ACLU has always opposed free expression zone statutes, as opposed to court-ordered injunctions). He contends that we should ban Fred because of the content of his speech: “There’s big difference between peaceful objection to killing innocent humans and viciously reveling in the death of a hero.”

    I would imagine, therefore, that Glib would have no problem with Fred doing his shtick in front of a gay funeral, as he has for over a decade. But, that’s what the First Amendment was designed to prevent, the selective application of laws to ideas we find unpopular!

  3. #3 bc
    February 1, 2007

    Fred Phelps’ group not only protests at gay funerals, it also protests at churches perceived as gay friendly. This is a family deal – all the people involved are members of Fred Phelps’ family. They only started picketing at military funerals as a way to generate more publicity, because they weren’t getting much from their other activities. But it’s kind of funny for fundamentalists to go after the Phelps – they use the same language the fundamentalists do about how God hates gays, citing the Bible.

  4. #4 doctorgoo
    February 1, 2007

    gwangung said:

    So, remember….contribute to Glib’s show so it can stay on the air…

    Are you perhaps confusing Glib Fortuna with Gribbit? Or do they both have radio shows?

  5. #5 doctorgoo
    February 1, 2007

    Ed said:

    This may be the all time most ridiculous slur against the ACLU

    Actually, the worst should be the NAMBLA slurs. I had never heard of that group before, until the right started using it in the same sentence with ACLU.

    Now, whenever certain relatives of mine start railing on the ACLU, their first ‘argument’ (snort) is to bring up NAMBLA. And as many times as I explain to them that it’s about the free speech and not about the group itself, they never seem to understand.

  6. #6 Ed Brayton
    February 1, 2007

    doctorgoo-

    NAMBLA is part of the same slur – “anyone the ACLU defends they must agree with.” It’s incomparably idiotic, thus it’s not at all surprising that the STACLU halfwits use it continually.

  7. #7 gwangung
    February 1, 2007

    Are you perhaps confusing Glib Fortuna with Gribbit? Or do they both have radio shows?

    Could be. They talk alike….

  8. #8 Badger3k
    February 1, 2007

    “If he does, he’s an idiot; if he doesn’t, he’s a demagogue. It really is that simple.”

    Why can’t he be both? Sounds like he’s an overachiever.

  9. #9 tikiheaad
    February 1, 2007

    We gays are quite used to the NAMBLA slur — we are usually informed, in tones of great disgust, that our Gay Pride festivals always have a NAMBLA booth!

    It’s time we just broke down and admitted the truth to save trouble — the ACLU is staffed by NAMBLA, and all gay men belong to NAMBLA as well.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!