ACLU Hypocrisy Files: Can they mention God or not?
Nat Hentoff has an interesting column in USA Today regarding some blindingly obvious instances where the ACLU’s position on what is “permissable” under the First Amendment when nearly identical facts are involved depends on which ACLU attorney returns your call.
From Hentoff’s piece “When schools silence God talk”:
Every year, the Frenchtown Elementary School in New Jersey presents an after-school talent show, open to kids from kindergarten through eighth grade. The performers can choose to play an instrument, dance, create a skit or select a song. This past school year, a second-grader decided to sing Awesome God. But during rehearsal, the teacher in charge, on hearing the title and lyrics, told the child that principal Joyce Brennan would have to approve that song. Brennan contacted the attorney for the school district. Brennan then explained in a letter to the child’s mother that the song was “inappropriate for a school-run event with a captive audience of, in many cases, quite young children because of its religious content.”
OK…so let’s use the same argument when talking about radical sex-ed. Just a side note…sorry about that.
In the Frenchtown Elementary School’s case, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is supporting the child plaintiff. Attorney Jennifer Klear, who took the case on behalf of the ACLU, filed a brief to the court. In it, she made the essential — and to me, obvious — point that it was the child who chose the song, not the school.
So there was no violation of the Establishment Clause by removing the “wall” of separation between church and state. Ironically, the school’s guidelines for the talent show mandated only that everything in the performances be G-rated. There were no other restrictions, nor was there a “captive audience” because students were not required to attend.
But the school district’s lawyer recoiled at the song’s religious content, and the principal explained that the song was the equivalent of a prayer. As this second-grader is discovering how embattled the First Amendment can be, the case is still in the courts.
In another lawsuit, an ACLU affiliate in Nevada has taken the side of school authorities, banishing certain religious speech. In June, during high school graduation exercises at Foothill High School in Henderson, Nev., valedictorian Brittany McComb was reading her address when, suddenly, school officials cut off the microphone.
The audience was spared her presumably infectious references to God, “the Lord,” and a mention of Christ. According to Clark County school district officials, while school events may include religious references, proselytizing is forbidden.
Agreeing, Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, said in the Las Vegas Review-Journal: “There should be no controversy here. It’s important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum … in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech,” thereby violating the Establishment Clause because of “her proselytizing.”
“People aren’t stupid,” the admirably clear-headed McComb told the Review-Journal, “and they know we have freedom of speech, and the district wasn’t advocating my ideas. … I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech. God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior.”
Before I get to the meat of this post, let me clear one thing up (again). The NJ case IS NOT the ACLU’s case. The little girl is being defended by the Alliance Defense Fund. The ACLU has filed a motion to submit an amicus brief in the case. Not that I have a problem with this, the ACLU should be this right more often. Rather, the ACLU has been peddling this as its own case in a widely distributed document that attempts to whitewash its record on “religious freedom.” As I pointed out in a previous post, if the ACLU was the “guardian” of religious liberty they claim to be, with the 6,000 cases per year they take, you’d think that their docket would be swollen with hundreds of THEIR OWN cases to demonstrate its claim. Please read the post I just mentioned for a further exploration into the ACLU and its record on religious liberty…it’s ugly.
Getting to this article: Hentoff makes some great points here, not only in slamming the ACLU and its inability to agree on foundational First Amendment “no-duh” principles, but in illustrating this truth with two recent high-profile cases. The facts are nearly identical — an individual at a non-mandatory school function choosing on her own to acknowledge her faith during that function. No brainer right? This is individual speech that could only be interpreted as “government” speech, well, by an idiot. That being the case — how do different ACLU chapters take diametrically-opposed positions on such BASIC Constitutional issues? (No, you may not take the position that the state chapters don’t count…they carry the name ACLU, so are fair game.)
Here’s the point, the ACLU only values the Constitution as far as it promotes its agenda. The ACLU is on record as supporting the subordination of the US Constitution to “international human rights standards” and for advocating “extra-constitutional” analysis, seeking to promote previously unknown “rights” when the structure and language of the Constitution and the law does not support the ACLU goals. So it is not surprising at all when national leadership cannot even keep the very document it claims to rely on sacrosanct that its attorneys are all over the map! Such chaos has created an atmosphere of confusion and intimidation. Where else would schools get such ridiculous ideas that led to these two girls having their rights compromised? You need look no further than the reasoning used by these schools (and an ACLU attorney who supported the Nevada schools) — their misimpression that the “separation of church and state” required their illegal actions.
…and what national organization has been pounding this radical separationist idea for so many decades? Yes, it is the ACLU’s fault. Even when they file a brief or defend a street preacher here and there, the environment the ACLU has created is responsible for the ridiculous ideas that lead to these cases in the first place.
Email This
Posted by G. Fortunato on August 28, 2006 11:46 am
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, Humor
Trackback URL:
- whereIstand.com/adamelijah: A Tale of Two Events
Comments
12 Responses to “ACLU Hypocrisy Files: Can they mention God or not?”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Don’t you think the captive audience criteria makes these two “nearly identical” cases actually quite different?
No one would argue that an after school talent show is not a captive audience while the Supreme Court ruled in Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District that, since students are coerced to attend graduation ceremonies, the audience at such events is captive.
the ACLU engages in “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin type arguments” by finding what we call in the legal profession “distinctions without difference”…you can pretty much always find some way to factually distinguish one case from another since they’re never identical…the key is whether it calls for a different conclusion when viewed in light of all the facts…seems to me that since the school wasn’t promoting the speech but instead it was clearly that of the individual with her own personal point of view, it isn’t the equivalent of governmental endorsement or support of a certain religious point of view…
Gonggggggggggggg.
“Don’t you think the captive audience criteria makes these two “nearly identical” cases actually quite different?
No one would argue that an after school talent show is not a captive audience while the Supreme Court ruled in Lassonde v. Pleasanton Unified School District that, since students are coerced to attend graduation ceremonies, the audience at such events is captive.”
1) This case was NOT heard by the SCOTUS.
2) The 9th Circuit’s decision turned the First Amendment on its head — how is it that Congress has passed a law respecting the establishment of religion when an individual talks about his faith, which he saw as responsible for his success, or when like every other graduation speaker does, offers what he thinks is the best advice in achieving the same?
3) You clearly didn’t read the opinion in the case you reference (I mean, you didn’t even know that the SCOTUS denied cert, so how could I expect that you’d read the actual opinion). The “coercion” the 9th Circcuit was talking about was NOT that students were coerced into attending (although when weaseling away from the Good News Club decision, they get around to pretending that graduation ceremonies are compulsory — “graduating seniors could be expected to attend.”), but that they were “coerced” into participating in proselytization by HEARING the student’s speech, a completely ridiculous position. Even more ridiculous, the court presumes to inform the country that it is the sole arbiter of exactly how much “religion talk” is the correct amount. Yeah, there’s fidelity to the First Amendment for you!
4) If one argues that speech at a graduation ceremony, even when the ideas expressed are by an individual and clearly not those of the school, “violates” the EC, the argument is very easy to apply to a talent show. The case you cite makes clear that since the school sponsored, funded, insured and had supervisory control over the ceremony that it had the right to censor speech in order to avoid “running afoul” of an EC violation. Couldn’t the school, and didn’t the school, do just this in Frenchtown and the McComb cases, making these cases, as I argue, “nearly identical” but still subject to concurrently opposite positions by the “guardian of our liberty?”
Final note on the ridiculous Lassonde decision. Read this from the opinion:
“allowing the speech would have had an impermissibly coercive
effect on dissenters, requiring them to participate in a religious
practice even by their silence.”
Can we apply this to an anti-war speech as well? I’d love to see a school district try this using Lassonde as controlling precedent in censoring a miniMoonbat tirade. They could argue that the audience, in hearing this speech was actually being forced to participate in an ANSWER rally! See how this works c-tex? Courts can be wrong and the court was wrong in Lassonde, just as the same court was wrong in Harper…which we WILL see at the SCOTUS.
Do you think it could be a nitpick over specifics? In the song “Awesome God” there is no mention of a specific god. The ACLU come out against Christmas songs and nativity plays at Christmas time. Could it be that it is because it specifically refers to Jesus Christ? The same in the McCombs case. She mentioned Christ specifically.
Could this be the ACLU’s reasoning? They were nowhere to be found in California when 8th graders were made to play Jihad and bow to Mecca in their social studies class.
Could it be the old saying about the ACLU…..We don’t hate religion, just Christianity?
The ACLU’s motivation of religious hate is profit; pure and simple; the getting of money with threats of legal action…its extortion. And very profitable.
The ACLU and its NAMBLA loving members had to find a steady revenue stream since child pornography is expensive, getting ‘hooked-up’ with the right children can be very expensive, and acquiring a good defense when caught is expensive.
Thus the intimidation of children (teens, their parents, and small local governments) who would like to thank God and their parents, in a simple graduation speech, school play, etc…
From Jay 2005 – ACLU Generates Revenue in Courtroom Campaign
$790,000 = San Diego: The ACLU was given $790,000 after suing to nullify a lease between the city of San Diego and the Boy Scouts of America. A federal judge sided with the ACLU, ruling that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because they require kids to pledge an oath to God and promise to live a “morally straight”
$150,000 = Barrow County (Ga.): The ACLU was awarded $150,000 after suing to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from the Barrow County Courthouse.
$50,000 = Tennessee: A Tennessee County was forced to pay the ACLU $50,000 after losing a legal battle to preserve a display of the Ten Commandments.
$175,000 = Alabama: Following the lawsuit, involving former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building, state taxpayers were forced to pay nearly $550,000 in attorney fees and court costs. Of that, $175,000 went to the ACLU.
$63,000 = California: Taxpayers were forced to give the ACLU a whopping $63,000 after their lawsuit to remove a World War One Memorial Cross from the Mojave National Preserve.
$74,462 = Habersham County (Ga.): The ACLU received $74,462 from Georgia taxpayers after suing to remove a Ten Commandments display from the Habersham County (Ga.) Courthouse.
$135,000 = Cobb County (Ga.): The ACLU is scheduled to receive $135,000 from Cobb County taxpayers, after suing the county to remove warning stickers from the district biology books. The stickers simply read, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.”
$18,000 = London (Ohio): After suing London, Ohio, for allowing their football coach to host a voluntary prayer for athletes, the ACLU was awarded $18,000 in attorney fees.
$110,000 = Multnomah County (Oregon): Incredibly, Multnomah County taxpayers were asked to pay a whopping $110,000 after the ACLU sued them for allowing the Boy Scouts of America to recruit on public school campuses.
$230,000 = San Diego (California): San Diego residents were forced to pay $230,000 in legal costs in an effort to defend the Mount Soledad Cross (a memorial to the Korean War) from an ACLU lawsuit. The Korean War Memorial had been established in 1952.
Glib Fortuna,
You want to know what is foolish is that our President or any elected representative can say God but a student can not. Whether or not the audience is captive is irrelevant. I guess Presidents and Congress members like Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama are above the law.
Or more likely the opinions of our corrupt and unelected Judges have nothing to do with the law as the U.S. Constitution expresses faith in Jesus with the term in the year of our Lord.
While we’re at it, we can also call 49 of the 50 state constitutions “unconstitutional.”
Glib Fortuna,
That includes the Virginia one which mentions God under the alias of Creator and Christianity in its Bill of Rights. It is specifically in section 16 which forbids the establishment of religion and allows for the free exercise of religion.
The Virginia Bill of Rights is known to be what the Federal Bill of Rights is based on.
Ed Brayton handily exposes the dishonesty in Glib’s claims:
“[The ACLU does] not claim [that Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al. is] their own case, they claim exactly what Fortuna claims, that they have filed an amicus brief in the case defending the student’s right to choose their own song. What Fortuna doesn’t tell you, of course, is that the ACLU has little control over what cases it represents. Sometimes there are multiple public interest groups who are willing to take on a case and it’s up to the plaintiffs, in this case the student’s parents, to decide who will represent them. There may be any number of reasons why one group ends up with the case over another. Perhpas the parents object to the ACLU’s positions on other issues and are more comfortable dealing with the Alliance Defense Fund. Perhaps the ADF simply got to it first.
“But the fact remains that the ACLU is firmly, and rightly, on the side of the student and filed a brief on her behalf defending her religious liberty in the case. And that is all they have claimed to do. If you read the document he links to, you’ll see that they are clear in each instance to tell you which cases they filed suits in, and which cases they simply filed briefs in because they were handled by someone else. Only someone truly hellbent on demonizing the ACLU, and with true contempt for honesty, would claim to find anything the least bit dishonest there.”
Glib, alas, still has not learned that the truth is a harsh mistress when she is ignored.
Glib, why am I not surprised that you cannot see the difference between these two cases. While both concern student activities at school functions, the similarities end there.
In Frenchtown, the student is merely expressing their own beliefs in front of an audience that is free to get up and leave if they don’t wish to participate. Everyone has their own religious beliefs and it would be silly not to expect people to act on those beliefs.
In the case of McComb, she wishes to use her forum to preach that others should accept her faith as their own. As in Lassonde and Cole before it, the courts have clearly stated that “permitting
a proselytizing speech at a public school’s graduation
ceremony would amount to coerced participation in a religious
practice.”
While the First Amendment clearly allows for the free exercise of religion, it does not permit it to interfere with others right to exercise their religion. Is it too hard to understand that my rights end where yours begin?
McComb do not preach that others should accept her faith as their own. She merely testified about the impact of her faith on her. Those are two vastly different things. You could say she endorsed Christianity but that is hardly evangelizing whatever she or you may think.
From McComb’s speech:
“Because the fact of the matter remains, man possesses an innate desire to take part in something greater than himself. That something is God’s plan. And God’s plan for each of our lives may not leave us with an impressive and extensive resume, but if we pursue His plan, He promises to fill us. Jeremiah 29:11 says, ” ‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future.”
This sure sounds like a sermon to me.