In these past few days I've been answering objections raised in just some of the comments in the old Spam file which I will not post. I have repeatedly told people that if they want to object civilly, on topic, without the typical tactic of refusing to engage in the argument by trying to change the subject and, most of all by arguing through invective, I might post your comments. My not posting comments I choose not to is not, as is typically whined by the big bold "free speech absolutists" a violation of free speech, it is me exercising my right to not publish crap.
I will answer a few points before moving on.
The ACLU certainly does not hold that all expression has an equal right to be heard. Its website brags about its role in the famous Dover decision that declared that the teaching of intelligent design is an impermissible intrusion of religion in public schools while the teaching of "evolution" by which I am sure most of the ACLU lawyers* would mean conventional neo-Darwinism, is free of such religious taint. Well, that's not true. The claim of non-teleology in science is as religious a claim as intelligent design. Which might make a post I'd find writing fun. But I digress.
And I would guess that it was likely how the issue was understood by the judge who heard the case and decided, on the facts before him particular to that case, as I have read, rightly decided that that particular articulation of intelligent design was kind of dodgy. Though I think any discussion of evolution, if you are going to go into it to the extent that questions of teleology come into it which leaves out intelligent design is inevitably to put the thumb on the scale in favor of atheist ideology. And rather badly argued atheist ideology, at that.
I do not in any way think that neo-Darwinism or even the original articulation of Darwinism, or, in fact, much of science as articulated and taught, is any less associated with religious ideology in that way. In just about every articulation of it and use of it, the religious ideology of atheism is asserted. We can anticipate the day when the ACLU idiotically gets a Roberts or, the way things are going under its "free press" "dollars are speech" framing, a future Kavanaugh court declares that atheism is a religious ideology impermissibly tainting the teaching of science. Which would be about the only honest decision I'd expect such a Republican-fascist court would make, though one which would have the most unfortunate consequences stupidly not anticipated by the lawyers who gave them that opportunity. And, believe me, they would make it so the fascists could make future hay out of it.
You'd think the lawyers of the ACLU would be aware enough the results of their obsession with bringing issues to the court so they can declare on their "Constitutionality." For most of the past forty years, it's a game for suckers unless you want the kind of stuff that the likes of the Rehnquist and Roberts courts hand down. I have to conclude that as those horrible decisions don't much impact on the personal lives of those lawyers that they're not really much bothered by their role in bringing those down from those corrupted courts.
But I digress. The ACLU certainly does not think that even all religious ideas have equal rights to be articulated, there are ideas they reflexively act to suppress. Those to-be-suppressed ideas aren't those harmful to equality and democracy, they are those which imply the reality of God, especially those which are associated with Christianity, which are to be kept out of the public square and even in the ineffective articulation of them in the relatively powerless forum of public schools - look at how badly Christianity took in the Republicans like Kavenaugh and others who went to parochial schools, those who went to "Christian" law schools.
I would bet that the ACLU, self-advertised champions of academic freedom, would weigh in against a teacher who, in some high school class, expressed skepticism of Darwinism, of natural selection and who pointed out the fact that it inevitably leads to promotion of eugenics, they would be against the academic freedom of a teacher who got in hot water with atheist parents or a group of atheists who raised the money to sue to suppress their freedom to teach mere skepticism of Darwinism and the historical truth that it leads to eugenics and genocide, as advocated by Darwin and a number of those in his close circle. Eugenics has, inevitably, the same goal as genocide, to cut groups of people out of the human future. It shares the same goal as the Nazis whose ability to propagate their promotion of that the ACLU champions.
But that's a hypothetical. I'm talking about their promotion of ideas being propagated, as they proudly and self-righteously point out, Nazism and the ideology of the KKK, which are to be protected when they are spouted where they can do the most harm, in that most dangerous of miseducational forums, broadcast, cable and internet media. TV, movies, pop songs, internet social-media are, terrible as it is to admit, the most powerful educational force in real life, the public schools struggle as much against them as they do the bad behavior that they encourage and the distraction they cause.
If you want egalitarian democracy, equality, equal justice under the law, economic justice, not to mention a sustainable environment instead of environmental mass suicide, you cannot favor allowing the present regime that has benefitted the propagation of the opponents of all of those absolute necessities of a decent common life. The ACLU is their best friend, they are like an ambulance crew who cheer on idiots playing chicken so they can pick up the survivors and bring them to the hospital. Liberals who support them are as big a bunch of chumps as liberals who support NPR. No, that's not true, they're bigger chumps. I was one of both kinds, well, I'm not anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment