Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

So does International relations

Published on December 17, 2004 By Dr Guy In Current Events

A prominent republican politican once said "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice". He was soundly trashed for that statement. But if we expand on that just a bit, we could also hear him say: Extermism in the pursuit of virtue is no vice.

And that latter brings us to the topic dujour. How the ACLU and Castro are making fine bedfellows.

This is not an anti ACLU tirade, but it is a warning. In their zealousness to remove all christian symbols from our society, they have become a caricture of their former self. And they fit right in with Castro's workers' paradise.

You would think that they would see the stupidity of their zealousness, and you would be wrong. For altho I do not question their intelligence, I do question their blindness. They have won many battles, and I have no doubt they will win many more. But in the end, their own blind ambition will be their downfall as finally, a majority of America screams enough. Extremism in the pursuit of virtue IS A VICE.

And it will be their fault for the backlash for failing to understand that being able to recognize history is not the same as promoting a religion.

Sleep well ACLU. Just dont complain about his scratchy beard.

Comments (Page 2)

Dr Guy

on Dec 18, 2004

you quoted one sentence correctly and then implied the tagline had to do with pursuing virtue. id love to see a link to goldwater saying anything of the sort.

I used one of his quotes and then paraphrased. I implied nothing. As I did not quote goldwater on that, I see no reason to check to see if he did. You can if you want to.

Dr Guy

on Dec 18, 2004

i'm not sure what youre predicting. the aclu better shut up and go away or do the right thing in order to prevent some sorta retaliation?

I am not predicting anything other than what is stated, and I dont believe I ever said they should shut up and go away. Why cant you simply read what is written instead of trying to read what you want to read. It is 2 different things.

Not everyone who does not agree with you is against you.

Dr Guy

on Dec 18, 2004

and then proceeded to claim the aclu's irresponsible stupidity was gonna lead to some horrendous conclusion because they were unwittingly being duped into castro zombies.

Wrong again. I never said they were Castro dupes. you did not read this did you? You really are clueless.

Dr Guy

on Dec 18, 2004

dont recall any campaigns or effort by the aclu to remove any religious symbols from the media, markets or anything excepy state-sponsored venues...so i dont know why youve decided the issue is society.

Then you dont read the paper. Try the Washington Post for starters. not a right wing rag, so you cant accuse it of being Anti-Aclu.

kingbee

on Dec 18, 2004

You really are clueless

one of us is.

I used one of his quotes and then paraphrased. I implied nothing. As I did not quote goldwater on that, I see no reason to check to see if he did. You can if you want to.

A prominent republican politican once said "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice". He was soundly trashed for that statement. But if we expand on that just a bit, we could also hear him say: Extermism in the pursuit of virtue is no vice.
And that latter brings us to the topic dujour.

my point is you couldnt hear goldwater or anyone but you saying that. since the rest of your argument is based on this misconstrual (no it's notta paraphrase; paraphrases are summaries of another's statement--you cant summarize something that wasnt said) as is your conclusion (

But in the end, their own blind ambition will be their downfall as finally, a majority of America screams enough. Extremism in the pursuit of virtue IS A VICE

), no wonder im clueless.

And that latter brings us to the topic dujour. How the ACLU and Castro are making fine bedfellows

why castro? since you didnt include the heads of any other communist state (the connection you seem to be attempting to make) and you follow it up with

And they fit right in with Castro's workers' paradise

and you end it with

Just dont complain about his scratchy beard

, you're handing out a clue that this is somehow tied to cuba.

it's not that im without clues. more like the clues youve provided go nowhere.

kingbee

on Dec 18, 2004

I never said they were Castro dupes. you did not read this did you?

you said:

How the ACLU and Castro are making fine bedfellows

saying the aclu is in bed with castro suggests two possibilities. a. theyre in bed with castro intentionally b. they are in bed with castro but unwittingly. i chose the latter because it seemed the least accusatory (you werent posting a diatribe right?) altho it also implies theyre dupes. did you mean theyre willing accomplices? what exactly is the aclu-cuban connection about which im so obviously clueless?

kingbee

on Dec 18, 2004

In their zealousness to remove all christian symbols from our society

the symbols on the billboard about which the fox article reports aren't christian symbols (the common cartoonish santa claus isnt st nicholas).

Dr Guy

on Dec 19, 2004

why castro? since you didnt include the heads of any other communist state (the connection you seem to be attempting to make) and you follow it up with

Did you even read the link? I guess not.

But if we expand on that just a bit, we could also hear him say: Extermism in the pursuit of virtue is no vice.

See, the word "expand upon it"? That means that is me talking. And then I draw my OWN conclusion.

So what you are saying is that I cannot quote anyone if I am going to make a statement? That I can only accurately quote historical figures on this? EXCUSE THE HELL OUT OF ME! But as it is my Blog, I can create my own quotes, and since I did not attribute it to anyone, who are you to deny me that right?

You are not only clueless, you are arrogant as well.

Dr Guy

on Dec 19, 2004

it's not that im without clues. more like the clues youve provided go nowhere.

RTFM before you complain it is broken.

Dr Guy

on Dec 19, 2004

saying the aclu is in bed with castro suggests two possibilities.

Excuse me again, but have you really read it? politics makes strange bedfellows? That is a common cliche and does not mean anyone is conspiring with anyone else, but that people who would not normally agree with one another, find themselves on the same side of an issue.

Why Am I wasting my time explaining the obvious to you? Why am I even defending myself when you are totally clueless.

Look, you want to debate, do so intelligently by reading the material, and if you get to a part you do not understand (an old cliche for example), ask for clarification. Dont waste your time and mine being a horses patoot. It is clear you did not read the link, and it is clear you do not know the cliche (which has nothing to do with the ACLU and Castro conspiring on anything).

Dr Guy

on Dec 19, 2004

the symbols on the billboard about which the fox article reports aren't christian symbols (the common cartoonish santa claus isnt st nicholas).

I bet you are one of the ones that accused Bush on not connecting the dots too. Seems it is a non-demoniational disease!

TaBoo Tenente

on Dec 20, 2004

dr guy,

i like your article, though i do not completely understand or agree with what i think you are saying.

in general, i agree with kingbee that aclu attempts are not consistently extreme. kingbee suggested, before all of this became personal, that aclu was devoted to the separation of church and state, not the eradication of religion from society. i do, however, think that aclu occasionally misjudges their own mandate.

i also am a bit confused about the correlation you draw between aclu and castro (communism?). im not ripping, here; i am just trying to understand.

are you suggesting that aclu strives to exile all elements of organized religion from our society? that aclu hopes to create a secular utopia, or that aclu sets organized religion in opposition to government?

my thought is that aclu hopes to separate the two, rather than link them either by allowing elements of religion to shade public propaganda or by opposing each other.

you have to admit that it is a difficult mandate to fulfill: they want to provide for everyone's freedom of religion, but they want to keep public policy from using any religious filter. personally, i think the ideal is a good one, and very important; i just think it is a difficult, and often confusing journey. two steps forward, one step back.

heather: in some ways i agree with you; i think any attempt to color history or rewrite it is a very dangerous, possibly catastrophic error. but i don't think evolving public symbols as society's understanding and tolerance evolves is a snub or attempt at manipulating history. if the aclu wanted to ban the memory of the state symbol, or education relating to the purpose and meaning and origins of such symbols, i would completely agree with you.

but symbols mean more than a lot. they mean everything. if our government sanctioned the use of religious symbols in the life of public policy, it means something. educating and relating history is one thing, but the crucifix, the swasticka, the star of david--these symbols mean so many different things and have so many rooted significances, that to link such ideologies to our government is a fundamental control placed upon truth.

freedom provides for a society allowed to include any of these symbols in our lives, just not to link them fundamentally to public policy. as such, i agree with the aclu.

TBT

Dr Guy

on Dec 20, 2004

i also am a bit confused about the correlation you draw between aclu and castro (communism?). im not ripping, here; i am just trying to understand.

are you suggesting that aclu strives to exile all elements of organized religion from our society? that aclu hopes to create a secular utopia, or that aclu sets organized religion in opposition to government?

Yes. Otherwise why would they go after the Boy Scouts, who are a private organization, for the only reason they require a profession of God?

I in no way am implying they are conspiring with Castro, only that they are both on the same side of this issue in trying to rid soceity of all references to God. I did not say they were evil, only that they are making their bed, and that the consequences of their actions is not going to be what they want due to a backlash of them having gone too far. They may have the best of intentions, and I do not doubt that, but in their zeal, they have gone too far.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!