I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. The thing I most often hear from people who are trying to put the ACLU down is: "Those people defended NAMBLA. How can you support them?" I've heard this often enough that I'm going to explain it here.
NAMBLA, which the ACLU refers to as a "vile" organization, was being sued because some disgusting men molested, tortured and killed a boy. The murderers had NAMBLA materials in their possession. The suit alleged that NAMBLA should be blamed, partially, for the murder of the boys, since NAMBLA promotes statuatory rape. NAMBLA does not (according to what I've read, but I can't bring myself to ever go to their website) promote murder and torture.
The ACLU position was, metaphorically, this: If group A promotes stealing cards, and person B steals a car and murders everyone IN the car, group A is not, therefore, advocating murder. The ACLU's goal was to prevent this kind of precedent from being established.
In other words: NAMBLA, this disgusting, horrible, evil organization, wasn't promoting the kind of evil committed by those men, and therefore could not be blamed for that evil.
I have three children. If there is a hell, the NAMBLA fuckwads will be there. Count on it. In fact, this whole topic makes me so incensed and repulsed that I can't even close this post the way I normally do.
10 comments:
thank you for clearing that misunderstanding. People sure do like to jump to conclusions, don't they?
Since you're too mad to finish as usual, I'll add my own.
love to all, even you, idiots pulled over for no apparent reason on a narrow,windy two lane road in the rain.
Interesting site. I am just passing through and wanted to comment as a member of the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alike (sorry stole that from South Park). Whether or not you agree with the ACLU at least they stick to their philosophy unbiased. It takes a much stronger person to speak out and protect the rights of those that are despicable in your eyes than to let it slide because it doesn’t affect you. Anyways, entertaining blog I’ll have to come back more often.
I think the problem that most people have with the ACLU is there jumping in and defending people who don't ask for it. I mean, many of us can defend ourselves and while I understand that their intentions are usually good, I think sometimes they should lay low. They don't belong in all the controversial situations they put themselves in.
Peace..............
Helen - I respectfully disagree, but would like to know more.
If you can show me an example of the ACLU defending people who didn't want to be defended by the ACLU, I'd be much appreciative.
I ahve been following your blog for a while now. Even though you and I come from opposidte ends of the political spectrum, I respect your well resoned positions. Perhaps you could get some of your allies on your side of the spectrum to use well reasoned arguements rather than spouting nonsense. The ACLU-NAMBLA post is a fine example. While I in no way support NAMBLA, the ACLU was right on this one, much like it was in defending the American Nazi Party and other unsavory organizations.
Doug - Thanks. You know, sometimes it seems we're becoming a nation of earpluggers and screamers... where dialog is considered weakness.
Thanks for stopping by to prove this isn't completely true.
I'll check out realthought.us later today.
I was put in a situation with NAMBLA once, as the chair of a pride celebration. They approached our committee to request a booth allocation at our Gay/Lesbian/Transgender/Queer celebration.
As a "supposed to be neutral" spokesperson for the committee, I had to grant their request to participate.
As a person seeking acceptance of my own alternative lifestyle choices, it was hard to be put in the position of deciding whether people whose lifestyle choices repulsed me could participate or not.
They came, but did not stay long, as the outrage by the other participants was very evident.
I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions anymore.
I do not understand how people in America are so tolerant of an organization that promotes sex/relationships with underage children. A nice way of saying raping, manipulating children. It is not about understanding that some people have alternative lifestyles. It is about something illegal. Last time I checked it is illegal to have these kind of relations with children. If an organization for people who like to murder friends and family comes along are we supposed to support that too? Just think for one moment what these children go through that fall victim to these predetors. We are supposed to protect them no matter what loop hole they find.
Hi, Jen.
Doesn't look like you read the post.
NAMBLA is about as disgusting and horrific as something can be. The point of the ACLU defending them was that, all because something is disgusting and illegal about ONE thing, that doesn't mean you can blame them for ANOTHER.
To put it in a less disgusting context: all because someone is a jewel thief, that doesn't mean that you can automatically accuse them of grand theft auto.
NAMBLA just doesn't talk about fantasy sex with boys, it actively promotes to its members how to pick up boys, what to say to them, how to seduce them, how to get the confidence of their parents, where to take the kids for sex, how to rip off credit card companies when you need to split the country to escape arrest and prosecution for successfully using the NAMBLA manual to get a third grader.
But Boy Scouts gets constantly harassed by NAMBLA, trying to disrupt them by finding out where their annual camps are and get them kicked off the land. I think it goes back to a grudge that the ACLU has against Boy Scouts over losing a case involved with them, being sore losers.
The ACLU is not going to live this down, defending a group that publishes detailed how-tos telling pedophiles how to do something sick, evil, and illegal. The ACLU has fleas from laying down with that dog.
Post a Comment