More STACLUelessness

This time from Kender, who stopped by yesterday to accuse me of "attacking" Gribbit, despite the fact that A) Gribbit was the one doing all the attacking, and B) I was merely correcting Gribbit's inaccurate statements. So I was perusing Kender's blog and found this post, in the long line of inaccurate "Where's the ACLU" arguments. " Where the Hell is the ACLU?????", he asks in the title (and yes, all those exclamation points are his - I don't think I'll ever understand the idea that excessive punctuation makes an argument better or more credible), and carries on this juvenile bombast in the next sentence:

No-Frickin-Where that's where!!!!!!From a CAIR press release comes this little gem of turdiness that just happens to highlight the complete hypocrisy of the ACLU:

More pointless punctuation. And as we shall see, this does not show any hypocrisy whatsoever on the part of the ACLU. This is yet another of those "why isn't the ACLU challenging this" arguments, but it's even worse than the usual ones. You frequently hear such arguments in cases where, in fact, the ACLU is on the same side but the plaintiffs are represented by someone else (like the students in Massachusetts wth the candy canes). But here, Kender mistakenly thinks that this is something that the ACLU should object to. Naturally, he gets most of the facts wrong. Here's what the press release says:

The San Diego chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-San Diego) recently took part in a day-long prayer and fasting event to promote peace sponsored by the Faith Leaders for Peace at the Federal Building in downtown San Diego.

Throughout the day, event participants shared teachings on peace from our various faith traditions and invited congregations to join in the event. Shaykh Taha Hassane, Imam of the Islamic Center of San Diego and also an active member of the Faith Leaders for Peace, led the mid afternoon prayer for Muslims.

"We applaud the efforts of the Faith Leaders for Peace for sponsoring this event and for the promotion of peace for all people and faiths," said CAIR-San Diego Director of Public Relations Edgar Hopida.

And here's Kender's subtle and measured reaction to it:

Let a Christian Church do this and watch the moonbats fly. Damned hypocrites.

But this is wrong on multiple levels. The first and most obvious reason why it's wrong is that there were Christian churches involved in this. As the press release notes, CAIR joined with the group Faith Leaders for Peace, which includes people and religious groups from numerous faiths, including Christian. It wasn't a Muslim event, the event included prayers and teachings from all of the major faith traditions, as the FLP website clearly says.

The more important problem is his assumption that this is something the ACLU would or should object to. That's simply nonsense. This was a legal rally outside a government building that is designated as a public forum (just like public parks are so designated - if they allow groups to meet on their grounds, they cannot deny a permit on the basis of viewpoint discrimination). Faith Leaders for Peace has just as much right as any community group to hold a rally there. Such rallies go on at public buildings and public parks literally every day, the vast majority of them sponsored by Christian groups - and no one tries to stop them.

Religious right organizations hold such rallies in city parks, on the grounds of public buildings and courthouses, and similar places all the time. They hold prayer vigils and speeches and concerts and rallies, and no one ever tries to stop them - including the ACLU. Such forums are open to any group to use for such rallies. There is no government endorsement in so doing, and in fact the ACLU strongly supports the right to hold events like this, whether the group is Christian, Muslim, atheist, or even vile groups like the KKK. If access was only given to a particular religious group and not to others, then the ACLU would, quite correctly, get involved. But it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the ACLU would attempt to stop Christian groups from using a designated public forum - especially when this particular group included Christians.

Tags

More like this

Ed - What don't you get about Kender?????!!!!????
He's an idiot!!!!!!
BUT you bring up a GREAT point!!!!! WHAT is it with trailer-trash creationist red-necks and PUNCTUATION????!!!
There is probably a paper out there waiting to be written about the evolution, excuse me, the developmnent and design of creationist /wing-nut writing styles. I seem to recall a memo written by Connie Morris of KS, that was JUST AWFUL!!!! AND I believe it was written on KSBOE stationary and addressed and SENT to KS voters!!!!!!! WING-NUT STUPIDITY - PRICELESS!!!!!!!! I say we just add Kender to the list!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Minor, minor nit:
"But it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the ACLU would attempt to stop Christian groups from using a designated public forum - especially when this particular group included Christians."

I think the first "Christian" should be "Muslim."

No, I intended to write that. Kender's point, such as it is, was that the ACLU is fine with Muslims praying on public property, but not Christians. It's a ridiculous point, but that's what he was trying to say.

These anti-ACLU types aren't far removed from creationists, IMO. Many creationists have a facts-be-damned attitude and simply regurgitate the arguments they've heard at church or from reading Kent Hovind's website. We've all had run-ins with them before; they're the ones who proudly barge into a discussion, asking the "tough" questions that evilutionists supposedly can't answer. You know... "IF EVILUTION IS TRUE WHY R THEIR STILL MONKEYS????!!!!!ONE!!!"

Look how Gribbit, um, "references" his most recent screed:

I initially heard about this last year when it was discussed on the O'Reilly Factor. I then read an Internet thread about it on a news site that I cannot now seem to be able to find.

It's too bad Gribbit couldn't have found a more credible source, such as a Charlie Daniels song or an e-mail sent to him by a co-worker.

Jay, Kender, Gribbit and the rest of the folks at StopTheACLU aren't opposed to the ACLU, they're fighting against a cartoon version of it that does not exist in the real world; it's a figment of the feeble minds of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk. Never mind that the ACLU has come to the aid of Limbaugh and Falwell; all that matters to these goons is that the ACLU, according to the pundits, is out to destroy Christianity.

Kender, Gribbit, Jay Stephenson, et al ought to direct some of their testosterone-addled rage towards whatever sources have misinformed them regarding what the ACLU is all about.

And Ed... please pay no mind to those who say that fisking StopTheACLU's posts is tantamount to bullying. I've been a fan of your site for awhile, and have always enjoyed your posts dealing with StopTheACLU. Keep up the good work.

By MisterDNA (not verified) on 15 Jun 2006 #permalink

"These anti-ACLU types aren't far removed from creationists, IMO."

I doubt it would surprise you to learn that these guys are all or nearly all creationists, be this by dint of upbringing or by political obligation (i.e., they rail against evolution because the far right demands it, and so creationism is the default stance). If first discovered Stop the ACLU by accident during a Technorati search for Dover trial material last fall on oh boy, you almost wouldn't believe what Jay and Co. were churning out at that point, even armed with the background provided here.

"And Ed... please pay no mind to those who say that fisking StopTheACLU's posts is tantamount to bullying."

I've been thinking about this and though on the surface it would seem that debunking any of these guys' claims is easy, this is only true from a purely logical standpoint; arguing with them is more difficult. This is because of a combination of the refuge in dirty tactics anyone on the Web can easily take (comment deletion, avoidance, etc.) and the sheer number of ways in which they are so often wrong in a single blog entry. Sometimes they're wrong about stuff they wrongly admit to being wrong to. Dissecting a winger argument is like trying to peel an onion the size of EPCOT's Spaceship Earth with a pinky toe. I may blog about this phenomenon, stealing from this very comment and then claiming I was never here when challenged!!!!! How ya like them apples?!?!?!?!

I don't pay much attention to arguments like "this isn't worth your time" or "you should be writing about something more important." It's my blog, I'll write about what I want. All I care about is that what I write is true and accurate and well thought out. I sometimes miss the mark in that regard as well and I never mind being corrected or having someone show me another way of thinking about an issue that I hadn't considered. That's what I find most frustrating about the STACLU types - they just don't seem to care whether the things they say are true or not. As long as they sound good and advance their agenda, that's all they seem to care about.

Bad arguments don't just go away when they're ignored.

And it's not like Ed linking to STACLU is going to send any of his readers into their camp.

It's too bad Gribbit couldn't have found a more credible source, such as a Charlie Daniels song or an e-mail sent to him by a co-worker

That was a very funny line. Made me laugh out loud.

I like it when Ed fisks these guys. I refuse to click over to them anymore as they are simply to stupid to visit. But I am glad Ed dissects them here.

Had to bring more bad news from outer space, Ed, but you're been written an open letter by Gribbit:

http://www.gribbitonline.com/?p=35

"by all means don't take my references of Moonbat, moron, imbecile, idiot, or stupid personally. I call all lefties that, and taking offense at such low level name calling, which I think is accurately descriptive of those who suffer from the mental disease of liberalism, is petty."

Come on. This is too much. Which one of you hacked into Gribbit's blog and wrote this stuff? Maybe none other than Ed, throwing in the false "lefty" reference to himself to throw off the scent?

Yes, I left a comment there but he hasn't let it through. There is a fair bit of irony in the fact that he says I can leave comments as long as I don't say bad things about him - but don't take it personally when he calls you an imbecile or a moron. Because it would be "petty" to take his name calling personally, but if you call him names he'll ban you and threaten to beat you up. Is this guy really that fucking loony? It appears so.

he's had enough - and he's taking his ball with him. A lonely figure of sadness whom I pity.

Wow. I think Gribbit needs to replace his sooper-tuff Bulldog graphic with something along the lines of a Fabrege egg or something. What a sissy!

Apparently, Ed, you're such an insignificant lefty that Gribbit doesn't feel the need to visit your blog and respond to your points. How do I know that Gribbit thinks you're insignificant? Because I just read his long-ass post dedicated to your insignificance!

I gotta love Gribbit's "You're a lefty because I say you are." rhetoric. Yep, and Bob Barr is a bleeding-heart liberal, too.

By MisterDNA (not verified) on 15 Jun 2006 #permalink

That's what I find most frustrating about the STACLU types - they just don't seem to care whether the things they say are true or not. As long as they sound good and advance their agenda, that's all they seem to care about.

This is a letter-perfect description of Harry Frankfurt's thesis in his book On Bullshit: the truth teller and the liar both acknowledge the truth in their own ways, one by revealing it and the other by seeking to conceal it. The bullshitter, on the other hand, genuinely does not care what the truth is, and will say whatever best suits his goals at the moment without regard for whether it's correct or even whether it's consistent with what he's said before. I believe that that noted philosopher Stephen Colbert also recognized this phenomenon when he dubbed it "truthiness".

Does anybody know how much of the ACLU these blastocysts have actually managed to stop? What these trogdolytes need for a graphic is a bulls eye !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

By Bill from Dover (not verified) on 15 Jun 2006 #permalink

I never miss any of your topics, Ed, but ones about the STACLU are the best! In fact, any posts having to do with the ACLU I look forward to because you break down the points so well. On internet forums, I've even referenced (and linked, of course!) some of your posts when arguing on similar topics. Keep up the great work!

Gribbit sez:

"by all means don't take my references of Moonbat, moron, imbecile, idiot, or stupid personally. I call all lefties that...

So it's all perfectly okay and you shouldn't take it personally 'cause he says that to everyone who disagrees with him, without regard to their personalities or the relevant facts. I guess it's also perfectly okay for him to deal with all Black people in the same indiscriminate manner, right?

And no, a Faberge egg would NOT be an appropriate graphic for his blog. Faberge eggs are made by hard-working people with culture and skills, and Gribbit (the bulldog with a frog in his throat?) has neither.