The Logic of the ACLU

[dies-l]

Correct, it doesn't make it any more right just because a lot of people believe it... but it does, however, dictate what kind of laws we have in place as long as they don't favor a particular religion.

For example, I felt that the smoking ban here in Ohio was wrong. I was of the mindset that if a particular place allows smoking, and someone doesn't like to be around it, then they simply shouldn't go to that place. However, they put it up for a vote, the majority voted in favor of the ban, and it became a law. I didn't like it, but I understand that in a system like ours the vote is very important so I adhere to that law. If we allowed people to usurp the constitution and bypass the voting process everytime a small group felt that the majority was too stupid to make the decision, we'd have an even worse division in the people of this country than we have now.

And this relates to what I said how?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

And this relates to what I said how?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your reasoning in your post:

They take cases that protect the deviant. Do you think that I am the only person in the world with similar views? Just google ACLU and look how many anti ACLU websites come up. They are primarily interested in preserving cases that are consistent with the cases I have highlighted.

Lots of people believe a lot of things that are wrong. The fact that a belief is shared by many people does not make it any more or less true.

I thought you were trying to suggest that any articles or sources that are anti-ACLU don't count as real sources. Sort of a "you're wrong, so that means any sources that support your position must be wrong as well".

I've been in several threads where I've been asked to post sources and studies to back up my position. Then, when I do post them, and they don't have the results that the opposing side was hoping for, they start taking the position of "well, if those sources don't coincide with my conclusion, then those sources must be wrong too so they don't count", so sorry if I get a bit on the defensive.

If that wasn't the point of your post, accept my apologies.

I've just noticed that every time that she explains that the ACLU just takes a few token cases to protect Christians but primarily focus on the more provocative cases, somebody is quick to jump in and make it sound like that's not the case and when she's provided sources to back up that statement, they're being quickly dismissed for bogus reasons or not acknowledged at all. The ACLU website itself will even indicate their christian protection cases makes up the smallest piece of the pie.

According to their own website, they took 4 cases 2011 protecting christianity. They took 19 cases on behalf of transgender individuals, 11 cases on behalf of illegal immigrants, and just over 30 cases for drug law reform (12 of which were cases where they were defending someone who got fired for failing a drug test).

Now to be fair, I will concur that if someone is transgender, by choice or by birth (that's a whole separate debate we won't get into right now), yes they will be a target for discrimination and it's probably a good thing they have someone watching their back. Same goes for illegal immigrants. I aslo agree that there need to be some changes to the drug laws and that if it were up to me and I owned a company, I wouldn't fire someone for smoking pot. I just wanted to make my positions clear on that so nobody gets confused and accuses me of targeting those 3 groups. I'm simply posting those counts to show that mdancin4thelord's point about their christians cases being token cases has a pretty strong statistical backing even from the ACLU website itself.

 

[acropolis]

It's not at all surprising that the ACLU only takes a few cases that involve protecting the dominant culture. Not many people get fired for being straight, after all, so it's going to be rare that the ACLU needs to jump in and fight. Similarly, the dominant religion in the US is Christianity with nearly 80% of the population identifying as some kind of Christian, so it's far more rare to get fired (or whatever) for being Christian than for being, say, Muslim.

 

[dies-l]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your reasoning in your post:


I thought you were trying to suggest that any articles or sources that are anti-ACLU don't count as real sources. Sort of a "you're wrong, so that means any sources that support your position must be wrong as well".

I've been in several threads where I've been asked to post sources and studies to back up my position. Then, when I do post them, and they don't have the results that the opposing side was hoping for, they start taking the position of "well, if those sources don't coincide with my conclusion, then those sources must be wrong too so they don't count", so sorry if I get a bit on the defensive.

If that wasn't the point of your post, accept my apologies.

I've just noticed that every time that she explains that the ACLU just takes a few token cases to protect Christians but primarily focus on the more provocative cases, somebody is quick to jump in and make it sound like that's not the case and when she's provided sources to back up that statement, they're being quickly dismissed for bogus reasons or not acknowledged at all. The ACLU website itself will even indicate their christian protection cases makes up the smallest piece of the pie.

According to their own website, they took 4 cases 2011 protecting christianity. They took 19 cases on behalf of transgender individuals, 11 cases on behalf of illegal immigrants, and just over 30 cases for drug law reform (12 of which were cases where they were defending someone who got fired for failing a drug test).

Now to be fair, I will concur that if someone is transgender, by choice or by birth (that's a whole separate debate we won't get into right now), yes they will be a target for discrimination and it's probably a good thing they have someone watching their back. Same goes for illegal immigrants. I aslo agree that there need to be some changes to the drug laws and that if it were up to me and I owned a company, I wouldn't fire someone for smoking pot. I just wanted to make my positions clear on that so nobody gets confused and accuses me of targeting those 3 groups. I'm simply posting those counts to show that mdancin4thelord's point about their christians cases being token cases has a pretty strong statistical backing even from the ACLU website itself.

My point was that there it's no connection between "lots of people agree with me" and "my opinion is objectively correct or reasonable". I have provided a pretty thorough explanation of how the aclu trends to view constitutional interpretation and have been met with "nuh uh, they just hate christians" type responses. And the prof that is provided is a couple of articles describing the aclu advocating for the very position I described.

 

[The Paul]

Reading the publications of an expert doesn't make them experts themselves, they're taking the expert's word for it in a lot of cases and having faith that the scientists are being honest in the documentation of their observation and conducting their tests in an ethical and unbiased manner without letting preconceived notions dictate how they report their results.

Scientific literature isn't just poll for the most popular idea among "qualified" people. It's tremendously technical and constantly cross references itself. No one has performed every experiment to confirm it personally, but the consistency across reported experiments approaches a point where if you want to discount its truth, you have to start imagining more difficult things to replace it.

The necessary conspiracy would be tremendous. And to what purpose?

I think the position of "if you don't feel as strongly about it as I do, it must be because you don't understand it enough" is a position of arrogance.

Not only arrogant, but a strawman as well.

I was listening to an interview/debate conducted between Daniel Dennett and a Rabbi (whose name I can't remember) and they were discussing the matter of which side of the Evo vs. ID was more closed-minded. Dennett's response was along the lines of "when discussing theories like these, it's the ID side that makes the claim that they know 100% percent beyond a shadow of a doubt how it all happened, but a true scientist understands that science is a humbling field where you always operate on the premise that you might discover something tomorrow that will shatter what you think you know today". I thought it was a great quote...not because he was pointing out a flaw in the ID position, but because the fact that he would make that acknowledgement leads me to believe that he is of the understanding that there could be a difference between "the best answer we have today" and "the right answer"

Religious people like to drag that out. "We didn't know about electrons until before 1897!" They will say, "Does that mean we shouldn't have believed there was any such thing until science discovered it? Just because science hasn't discovered something yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist!"

But

1) In actual fact no one believed in electrons before 1897. There was no spiritual cabal of electonists being shouted down by "mainstream science" or any similar analogy to the plight believers think they are in.

2) We didn't start believing in electrons by telling ourselves we have to give equal credence to whatever anyone believes since nothing can ever be proven. Solipsism didn't get us electrons.

There's a bit of a trend there. Science discovers things we didn't know existed before all the time. They never turn out to match up with anyone's fevered imaginings, though.

Yes, a reasonable look at history informs us not to pretend we know everything. It also informs us that we shouldn't take that as a license to believe just anything without evidence.

While 99.9999% of the scientists agree on evolution as a whole, there's still division on some of the details which makes me hesitant to acknowledge it as 100% fact.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Yes, my client was at the scene of the crime, yes there are powder marks on his gloves, yes the blood on his shoes belongs to the victim. But the prosecution is unable to agree upon the color of the socks he was wearing at the time."

There is a certain point beyond which further details are not needed to make a broad declaration about what happened.

So to make a long story short (I know it's a little late for that ), I personally view evolution as the most plausible answer for me, I'm the kind of person where I need all of the numbers to be in before I'm willing to make it my final answer...pardon my bad "Who wants to be a millionaire" pun.

Whether it is for you or it is for someone else. The world is real, things happened, and we can investigate them.

It is possible to know things. I don't know why rejecting this has become philosopher-chic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

My point was that there it's no connection between "lots of people agree with me" and "my opinion is objectively correct or reasonable". I have provided a pretty thorough explanation of how the aclu trends to view constitutional interpretation and have been met with "nuh uh, they just hate christians" type responses. And the prof that is provided is a couple of articles describing the aclu advocating for the very position I described.

I realize that, that's why I don't think the logic of "lots of people agree with me" should be used on either side of the debate as a final selling point. However, it could be valid info in terms of revealing the will of the majority.

I don't think they "hate Christians" (I'm assuming you're referring to someone else posting in the thread who might have made that comment), I think that Christians are the ones who question them on what they're doing more than any other group so they have a slight animosity toward christianity that they don't have for other religions. I think that when it comes down to secular vs. Christian, their track record speaks for itself on which side they're statistically favor. However, if you look at secular vs. --Insert less popular religion here--, the same thing cannot be said. By their actions, they've given the opinion that Christian symbols and practices are offensive and a threat to everyone's 1st amendment freedoms, but referred to symbols of other, less popular religions, as important for traditional and historical understanding. I posted a link to a story earlier in this thread the tells one such story.

Constitutional interpretation is okay from the judicial branches in cases the constitution is left open to interpretation. Like the 2nd amendment for example, there's a couple ways that could be interprated so there's a legitimate debate on what it means. However, the 1st amendment is not one of those cases. It clearly states that congress isn't allowed to pass a law favoring a particular religion. I don't see how that's open for interpretation.

As I've mentioned before, if they used the verbiage of "public leaders" instead of "congress", I would say 100% you have a legitimate gripe because we need to define what "public leader" is and which positions constitute that role. However, we know what congress is, it's the federal legislative branch, and in the 14th amendment it was extended to the state legislature. Those are the only two governing bodies that have that constraint.

If the ACLU and citizens of this country have a problem with that, then they need to take the appropriate course of action. They shouldn't be trying to read things into the document that aren't there and use that as grounds for threatening legal action. They should be reviewing Article 5 and finding out what needs to happen to amend it properly. Just like in 1868 when they felt that some of the rules put in place needed to be enforced on the state level and not just federal, they took the appropriate channels and got an amendment created.

Is the reason they don't want to do this the correct way because they fear that a proposed amendment giving them what they want (extending the amendment to legislative branches at the local and educational level) wouldn't get the 2/3 vote it needed to pass? If the ACLU's position is such undeniable truth, you'd think they'd want to fix the problem at it's source instead of fighting the same legal battle a dozen times per year...

 

[Jro]

I don't understand, why do they need the amendment if the courts already interpret the law that way? Do you think that it would stop people from committing these offenses?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't understand, why do they need the amendment if the courts already interpret the law that way? Do you think that it would stop people from committing these offenses?

The courts have the right to interpret laws, not change them. Trying to make the word "congress" apply to an elementary school priciple is trying to use if for a purpose other than what it was intended for. If that law really applied to school officials, why didn't the founding fathers stop it from happening in the schools of their time?

If that was one of the things their amendment was targeting, and it was happening in their very own time, wouldn't they have tried to stop it, or make mention of it as being an "offense"? If it had been an offense, Madison and Jefferson would have been all over it. It appears that this viewpoint wasn't even brought to the table until the newly formed ACLU in 1925 started paying teachers to not teach from the bible. Public schools still used the McGuffey Reader as an official text book which had bible verses in it.​

So with that being said, if the ACLU wants there to be an amendment that actually grants them what they want without having to twist existing laws, why aren't they trying to get a new amendment created that puts up a wall of separation between the church and department of education? It'll save them a lot of time and money moving forward and free them up to fight for other causes.

 

[AtheistVet]

The courts have the right to interpret laws, not change them. Trying to make the word "congress" apply to an elementary school priciple is trying to use if for a purpose other than what it was intended for. If that law really applied to school officials, why didn't the founding fathers stop it from happening in the schools of their time?

Why did the founding fathers only allow white male landowners to vote? Why did the founding fathers allow slavery?

They weren't perfect.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why did the founding fathers only allow white male landowners to vote? Why did the founding fathers allow slavery?

They weren't perfect.

Correct, they weren't perfect.
(I'm actually glad you brought that up since I was looking for a working example of how to correctly amend the constitution to backup my previous post)

...and that's why, in 1870, when they came upon the conclusion that the founding fathers were wrong on that one, they went through the proper channels and got the 15th amendment created

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

Do you not agree that this was the best way to handle it?

By ACLU logic, I guess what should've happened instead was a 3rd party organization should have came in and tried to convince the supreme court to redefine what the word "white" meant.

 

[AtheistVet]

But the ACLU is using the constitution in a legal manner. They don't need to make an amendment, the amendment is already there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But the ACLU is using the constitution in a legal manner. They don't need to make an amendment, the amendment is already there.

Please provide the exact text from this amendment that states that a city school (or the local level of government for that matter) can not have an affiliation with religion.

There might just be an amendment that I missed that clearly states this, I've just been focusing on the 1st and 14th which is why I might have missed this other amendment that says that.

 

[dies-l]

I realize that, that's why I don't think the logic of "lots of people agree with me" should be used on either side of the debate as a final selling point. However, it could be valid info in terms of revealing the will of the majority.

I don't think they "hate Christians" (I'm assuming you're referring to someone else posting in the thread who might have made that comment), I think that Christians are the ones who question them on what they're doing more than any other group so they have a slight animosity toward christianity that they don't have for other religions. I think that when it comes down to secular vs. Christian, their track record speaks for itself on which side they're statistically favor. However, if you look at secular vs. --Insert less popular religion here--, the same thing cannot be said. By their actions, they've given the opinion that Christian symbols and practices are offensive and a threat to everyone's 1st amendment freedoms, but referred to symbols of other, less popular religions, as important for traditional and historical understanding. I posted a link to a story earlier in this thread the tells one such story.

Constitutional interpretation is okay from the judicial branches in cases the constitution is left open to interpretation. Like the 2nd amendment for example, there's a couple ways that could be interprated so there's a legitimate debate on what it means. However, the 1st amendment is not one of those cases. It clearly states that congress isn't allowed to pass a law favoring a particular religion. I don't see how that's open for interpretation.

As I've mentioned before, if they used the verbiage of "public leaders" instead of "congress", I would say 100% you have a legitimate gripe because we need to define what "public leader" is and which positions constitute that role. However, we know what congress is, it's the federal legislative branch, and in the 14th amendment it was extended to the state legislature. Those are the only two governing bodies that have that constraint.

If the ACLU and citizens of this country have a problem with that, then they need to take the appropriate course of action. They shouldn't be trying to read things into the document that aren't there and use that as grounds for threatening legal action. They should be reviewing Article 5 and finding out what needs to happen to amend it properly. Just like in 1868 when they felt that some of the rules put in place needed to be enforced on the state level and not just federal, they took the appropriate channels and got an amendment created.

Is the reason they don't want to do this the correct way because they fear that a proposed amendment giving them what they want (extending the amendment to legislative branches at the local and educational level) wouldn't get the 2/3 vote it needed to pass? If the ACLU's position is such undeniable truth, you'd think they'd want to fix the problem at it's source instead of fighting the same legal battle a dozen times per year...

Do you accept the incorporation doctrine as a valid interpretation of the fourteenth amendment?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Do you accept the incorporation doctrine as a valid interpretation of the fourteenth amendment?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The incorporation doctrine as I understand it is an interpretation that says that the text above prevents the states from infringing upon any of the immunities provided at the federal level by the bill of rights and extends the bill of rights to the states (IE: The state of New York can't pass a law prohibiting free speech)

So, Sure I would accept that interpretation...It matches up with the actual text.

That's why if we were talking about the Ohio state congress mandating that the Christian bible be taught, this would be a very different conversation and I would be on your side of the debate because that would be state congress showing support for a particular religous interest... which would be a violation of the the 1st amendment via the 14th amendment which makes this text applicable to the state of Ohio:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

However, since we're talking about the department of education (which is the executive branch; not congress), principles hanging religious items on their walls (also nothing to do with the legislative branch or state lawmaking in general), and the front lawns of city halls (which isn't at the state level), the incorporation doctrine doesn't apply to these scenarios.

Therefore, the ACLU's beef is a opinion based one and not a constitutional one.

 

[dies-l]

The incorporation doctrine as I understand it is an interpretation that says that the text above prevents the states from infringing upon any of the immunities provided at the federal level by the bill of rights and extends the bill of rights to the states (IE: The state of New York can't pass a law prohibiting free speech)

So, Sure I would accept that interpretation...It matches up with the actual text.

That's why if we were talking about the Ohio state congress mandating that the Christian bible be taught, this would be a very different conversation and I would be on your side of the debate because that would be state congress showing support for a particular religous interest... which would be a violation of the the 1st amendment via the 14th amendment which makes this text applicable to the state of Ohio:



However, since we're talking about the department of education (which is the executive branch; not congress), principles hanging religious items on their walls (also nothing to do with the legislative branch or state lawmaking in general), and the front lawns of city halls (which isn't at the state level), the incorporation doctrine doesn't apply to these scenarios.

Therefore, the ACLU's beef is a opinion based one and not a constitutional one.

Where does a local government or Board of Education get its authority from?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Where does a local government or Board of Education get its authority from?

Local government is different than state & federal. State & Federal share powers as to where local goverment is granted power by the state. In terms of state and federal laws, the local level is allowed to enforce the law (IE executive branch duties), but have no powers in terms of state & federal legislative duties. So if the drinking age is 21 for the state of ohio, local officials have the power to arrest a 19 year old for consuming alcohol, but would not have the power to lower the drinking age for the state of Ohio.

Board of education gets their authority from the federal department of education. (Which is executive branch, not legislative)

Department of Education (ED) | USA.gov
The Department of Education establishes policy for the nation's schools, and administers and coordinates most federal education assistance.

So neither of these two have legislative branch powers at the state or federal level...or to put it in simpler terms; The board of eduction and the local government are not State/Federal Congress.

 

[dies-l]

Local government is different than state & federal. State & Federal share powers as to where local goverment is granted power by the state. In terms of state and federal laws, the local level is allowed to enforce the law (IE executive branch duties), but have no powers in terms of state & federal legislative duties. So if the drinking age is 21 for the state of ohio, local officials have the power to arrest a 19 year old for consuming alcohol, but would not have the power to lower the drinking age for the state of Ohio.

Board of education gets their authority from the federal department of education. (Which is executive branch, not legislative)

Department of Education (ED) | USA.gov
The Department of Education establishes policy for the nation's schools, and administers and coordinates most federal education assistance.

So neither of these two have legislative branch powers at the state or federal level...or to put it in simpler terms; The board of eduction and the local government are not State/Federal Congress.

Ok. So local government is granted power by state government (specifically by the legislature). Therefore, wouldn't any act of local government be an exercise of the legislative power of the state? So to say that local government action cannot violate the establishment clause is to say states can immunize themselves from complying with the first amendment by delegating power to a third party. This seems to run absolutely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the fourteenth amendment.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ok. So local government is granted power by state government (specifically by the legislature). Therefore, wouldn't any act of local government be an exercise of the legislative power of the state? So to say that local government action cannot violate the establishment clause is to say states can immunize themselves from complying with the first amendment by delegating power to a third party. This seems to run absolutely contrary to the letter and the spirit of the fourteenth amendment.

No, it would be an act of that local government. Unless the local government has found a way to pass a law on behalf of congress or the state legislature, a violation of the 1st & 14th amendment by the local level wouldn't even be possible considering that a township/city law can't violate or usurp a federal or state law.

In the cases we're talking about, a school principle with a picture of Jesus in his office or a nativity scene on the lawn of city hall isn't related to law making or the establishment clause for that matter.

The establishment clause is "[t]he First Amendment provision that prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

As I said before, if preventing the principle and city hall from doing this is truly the will of the people, they need to contact their congressman and ask that they invoke article 5 and get the constition amended to include a new incorporation clause that extends to the state/local executive branches to include the board of education.

 

[KarateCowboy]

No, it would be an act of that local government. Unless the local government has found a way to pass a law on behalf of congress or the state legislature, a violation of the 1st & 14th amendment by the local level wouldn't even be possible considering that a township/city law can't violate or usurp a federal or state law.

In the cases we're talking about, a school principle with a picture of Jesus in his office or a nativity scene on the lawn of city hall isn't related to law making or the establishment clause for that matter.



As I said before, if preventing the principle and city hall from doing this is truly the will of the people, they need to contact their congressman and ask that they invoke article 5 and get the constition amended to include a new incorporation clause that extends to the state/local executive branches to include the board of education.

Well said. The Imaginary Separation Clause simply does not exist. There is a clause which says (Federal) Congress shall enact no law recognizing an establishment of religion. Connecticut had a state church for decades. That is entirely legal and Constitutional. The 'wall of separation', as envision by secular fundamentalists, is a myth.

 

[dies-l]

No, it would be an act of that local government. Unless the local government has found a way to pass a law on behalf of congress or the state legislature, a violation of the 1st & 14th amendment by the local level wouldn't even be possible considering that a township/city law can't violate or usurp a federal or state law.

In the cases we're talking about, a school principle with a picture of Jesus in his office or a nativity scene on the lawn of city hall isn't related to law making or the establishment clause for that matter.

As I said before, if preventing the principle and city hall from doing this is truly the will of the people, they need to contact their congressman and ask that they invoke article 5 and get the constition amended to include a new incorporation clause that extends to the state/local executive branches to include the board of education.

You may not agree with this interpretation of the first and fourteenth amendments. A lot of neocons don't. But, to say that the text of the constitution clearly contradicts it is not something that can be asserted with any level of intellectual honesty.