Some days, it's hard to tell whether someone is hopelessly stupid, wretchedly dishonest or an unfortunate and nauseating combination of the two. Like this idiot, whose posting I'm going to quote in full to make sure you can appreciate the sheer and overwhelming dumbfuckitude of it:
"Choose Life" plates
The state of Tennesee has just approved the "Choose Life" banner plates for use in the state. Of course, the ACLU was the main objector... and they supposedly support "freedom of speech". (and thanks for your forthcoming comment Drew...) ;-)
Either you support freedom of speech, or you don't. Of course, I support LIMITS on freedom of speech, such as limits on spreading hate, pornography, etc. But to try to limit someone from espousing a point of view where there is no harm to any identifiable group, well, I think that's hypocrisy. Don't you? Someone (the ACLU) claiming to be protecting free speech by seeking to limit someone else's right to free speech. Can anyone help me out with this one?
Now, some may point out to my recent posts on how the left attacks Christians, and claim that I'm being hypocritical myself... my saying that the left should quit attacking the church. My previous argument was that the left is CONSISTANT and UNRELENTING in it's public attacks on Christianity... ATTACKS, not just expressing their views. They make it seem like anyone who holds to Christian values is an uneducated bigot, and that is just as unacceptable.
Now, after reading that whole thing very, very carefully, what's missing? Why, the fact that the ACLU actually won this case earlier and that one of the ACLU objections was that the Tennessee Legislature had (in a violation of Constitutional rights) approved a "Choose Life" license plate while simultaneously rejecting an application for an alternative pro-choice plate:
In 2003 the Legislature authorized creating a "Choose Life" plate and rejected an amendment allowing a pro-choice plate.
Wow. And to think you'd never have known that if you'd just read CCC's abysmally deceptive take on the topic. Are you lucky I'm here or what?
FOR THOSE WHO WANT EXTRA READING: The foundation of the ACLU's suit here is what is, these days, called "viewpoint discrimination," which means simply that the (U.S.) government does not have the right to allow or promote one set of opinions while excluding other equally valid but differing opinions.
It's fascinating to observe that the same Scripture-spouting wingnuts who won't even mention that issue in some contexts (like the one above) are much the same ones who are all over that idea when it suits their purposes, such as claiming that rejecting "Intelligent Design" from the classroom is (you guessed it) "viewpoint discrimination."
(Note how, when it comes to ID, its promoters know all about the evils of viewpoint discrimination:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the government from regulating speech based on "its substantive content or the message it conveys." Accordingly, it is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to exclude ideas from a public forum simply because of the content of those ideas.
So it's not like they don't understand the concept or anything; they simply choose to apply it really, really selectively.)
And the Christian, hypocritical double standard just rolls on, doesn't it?