The Washington Post reports a lawsuit on behalf of

The administrator was wrong to stop the girl from reading the bible. Heck, I don’t care if it was “It’s Perfectly Normal”, “The Catcher in the Rye” or the Quran. The administrators actions clearly went against the districts policies and they will lose this case because of it. It has nothing to do with the ACLU. If they take a position on this at all, it will likely be on the side of the girl.

Also, you should acknowledge that they aren’t as hypocritical and “anti-christian” as is typically portrayed. If they were, they’d be defending the school for attempting to squelch the rights of a christian.

They don’t need to. The larger point is that most local government officials are plain scared of what the ACLU will do to their local agency that they go above and beyond what is called for just to insure they be left alone. Because the ACLU is a classic example of a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization. Just as the mob does not have to explicitly threaten a restaurant owner to make sure he uses the ‘right’ uniform cleaning service, so too, do local government officials not need the explicit threat of a lawsuit before they act to take away the rights of god fearing americans. The ACLU reputation preceeds them.

Nothing will end a civil servant’s career faster than getting teir their local city/county/whatever involved in a costly lawsuit.

I am saying that the ACLU SHOULD be chomping at the bit to defend her.

When I said

Still, you’re making assumptions as to their position. It’s possible that they are chomping at the bit to defend her, but she chose the Rutherford Institute for some reason.

I was trying to imply this: How do you know that they aren’t chomping at the bit?

. By the way, I just called the ACLU of Maryland, talked to the receptionist, and she didn’t know what their position was. Said she would pass my message to an attorney and that I could check back in maybe a week.

Excellent, thanks. That’s a little long to wait though. I’m surprised they don’t have a dedicated spokesperson. Ah well. I can’t wait to hear what they have to say!

Still, you’re making assumptions as to their position. It’s possible that they are chomping at the bit to defend her, but she chose the Rutherford Institute for some reason. I would be interested to hear what they have to say.

Blogs are frequently criticized as being nothing more than partially-informed editorials. This would be a good opportunity to get your feet wet on the investigative side of journalism.

Also, you should acknowledge that they aren’t as hypocritical and “anti-christian” as is typically portrayed. If they were, they’d be defending the school for attempting to squelch the rights of a christian.

Here is a prime example of how the philosphy of “seperation of church and state” being overzealously pushed has confused many school officials into violating student’s Constitutional Rights.

That’s a huge stretch. This administrator was clearly out of line. He wasn’t even following the clear, written policy of the district, let alone the DoE. His interpretation was just plain wrong.

The girl is more than welcome to read her bible, so the ACLU would be wrong to defend the administrator. It’s disingenuous to suggest that the only reason they’re not against this girl is because “it slipped under their radar.”

Your speculation is baseless. If you wish to engage in an honest discussion of the ACLU’s stance on this subject, you should call their spokesperson and ask them to weigh in on it.