Comments on: Federal Courts Require Funding of Supporters of Forced Prostitution http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/14/federal-courts-require-funding-of-supporters-of-forced-prostitution/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:01:57 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: rationalaversion http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/14/federal-courts-require-funding-of-supporters-of-forced-prostitution/comment-page-1/#comment-50572 rationalaversion Tue, 16 May 2006 01:55:48 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/14/federal-courts-require-funding-of-supporters-of-forced-prostitution/#comment-50572 The oproblem with all this is that no one challenges judges when they cash their paychecks or draw benefits (get their teeth fixed, etc) after acting against their sworn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Judges are domestic enemies. Cashing a paycheck for fraudulent performance of duty is...hold your breath...a felony. Lock 'em up in a cute little skirt with somebody who's really, really horny. The oproblem with all this is that no one challenges judges when they cash their paychecks or draw benefits (get their teeth fixed, etc) after acting against their sworn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Judges are domestic enemies. Cashing a paycheck for fraudulent performance of duty is…hold your breath…a felony.

Lock ‘em up in a cute little skirt with somebody who’s really, really horny.

]]> By: The one with a bråin http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/14/federal-courts-require-funding-of-supporters-of-forced-prostitution/comment-page-1/#comment-50570 The one with a bråin Sun, 14 May 2006 22:27:10 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/14/federal-courts-require-funding-of-supporters-of-forced-prostitution/#comment-50570 I agree with Mr. Smith (I think). The courts perceieve a key and non-semantic difference between "oppose" and "avoid engaging in." I reckon most people would expect anyone receiving humanitarian funds for HIV-related disease to not be pulling tricks, but there's no way to guarantee how someone actually thinks about something. To illustrate the same thing in reverse, I fully recognize that monotheistic religions -- particularly of the Abrahamic variety -- are utter nonsense, but fully support others' right to observe said nonsense as long as it's not allowed to influence public policy. I agree with Mr. Smith (I think). The courts perceieve a key and non-semantic difference between “oppose” and “avoid engaging in.” I reckon most people would expect anyone receiving humanitarian funds for HIV-related disease to not be pulling tricks, but there’s no way to guarantee how someone actually thinks about something.

To illustrate the same thing in reverse, I fully recognize that monotheistic religions — particularly of the Abrahamic variety — are utter nonsense, but fully support others’ right to observe said nonsense as long as it’s not allowed to influence public policy.

]]> By: Miller Smith http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2006/05/14/federal-courts-require-funding-of-supporters-of-forced-prostitution/comment-page-1/#comment-50571 Miller Smith Sun, 14 May 2006 14:42:37 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2006/05/14/federal-courts-require-funding-of-supporters-of-forced-prostitution/#comment-50571 I may be required to not engage in criminal behavior as a condition of government funding, but I may not be required to agree with the law. I have the right to oppose the law while I follow it. Otherwise, we could not oppose the overturning of a bad law. This sounds very much like the "dispositions" requirement of the National Council of Teacher Education that colleges of education must get accreditation from in order to be certified to mint new teachers. If you don't proclaim that you believe in the liberal agenda, you can't be a teacher. You can't even take classes. FIRE has covered just such a case. Let us have NO thought control or political activity requirements for federal funding. Thank you for your blog site. Sincerely, Miller Smith I may be required to not engage in criminal behavior as a condition of government funding, but I may not be required to agree with the law. I have the right to oppose the law while I follow it. Otherwise, we could not oppose the overturning of a bad law.

This sounds very much like the “dispositions” requirement of the National Council of Teacher Education that colleges of education must get accreditation from in order to be certified to mint new teachers. If you don’t proclaim that you believe in the liberal agenda, you can’t be a teacher. You can’t even take classes. FIRE has covered just such a case.

Let us have NO thought control or political activity requirements for federal funding.

Thank you for your blog site.

Sincerely, Miller Smith

]]>