Freedom of speech

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Thomas Anessi wrote:

> ... I agree that acts of hate and articles promoting violence should
> be prosecutable, but I also believe that they currently are.  Perhaps
>  it is a distraction to bring the ACLU issue to this forum, but to me
> it is a perfect example of how many Americans would rather have the
> government take action regardless of the Constitution.  But it is not
> the defense of hate speech that raises the ire of most Americans
> against the ACLU. It is their annoying habit of defending atheists
> against publicly funded celebrations of Christmas.

If the shoe were on the other foot, most Americans would get the point 
that the ACLU is an ally and defender of their freedom. Imagine that 
America were run by atheists who used government funds to promote their 
views. How offensive would that be to the millions of Christians? The 
genius of the founders was to see, in the light of then-recent abuses by 
various proselytizing European governments, that government must remain 
strictly neutral on matters of religion. And it is this neutrality that 
the Christians will not accept. In their hypocritical view, government 
must remain neutral (read "indifferent") with respect to other faiths or 
lack thereof, but actively partisan with respect to Christianity.

-- 
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
pbg translations, inc.
"Russian Translations That Read Like Originals"
http://pbg-translations.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                    http://seelangs.home.comcast.net/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------