ACLU Against Free Speech if the Speech is Religious
Posted on November 21, 2006
As is typical for this time of year, the ACLU is shaking down towns and schools to keep them from acknowledging Christmas. Despite the fact that everyone gets off December 25th and the only holiday that is being celebrated is Christmas (sorry Kwanzaa is a joke), the Republic will crumble if that fact is acknowledged.
The latest battle took place in Berkley, Michigan where the ACLU threatened a lawsuit if the city did not remove a nativity display from public grounds. For the most part, the episode is exactly what has played out in most other fronts of the War on Christmas. One interesting anecdote, however, stands out.
One of the compromises that was suggested to the ACLU was the creation of a “free speech zone.” This would be an area outside most government control where citizens could put up holiday displays of their own choosing. The ACLU was dead set against this idea. Their rationale? Citizens would use their free expression to support Christmas. The “defenders” of the Bill of Rights stood against free speech.
The First Amendment is clear, while establishing a state religion is illegal, so is prohibiting free expression of religion. The First Amendment requires institutional separation, not public atheism.
If someone wants to put up a Hanukkah display, fine. If someone wants to put up a Kwanzaa display, they need to find a holiday that’s not a complete invention. A diverse and pluralistic society doesn’t seek to squelch cultures; it seeks to respect them all. The ACLU isn’t interested in a diverse and pluralistic society.
This nation celebrates the same holiday on December 25th, that holiday is called Christmas. As the name implies, it celebrates the birth of a person who did, in fact, exist in history. It is undeniable that this person has a profound impact on the world and history. Many people, even atheists, celebrate a secular version of this same holiday.
It is time for the ACLU to stop rewriting our institutions, our culture, our history, and our traditions. A free nation doesn’t need a band of elite lawyers to tell us how to behave in public. It certainly doesn’t need an aristocracy of lawyers and jurists using government power to keep us from exercising our freedom.
John Bambenek is the Assistant Politics Editor for Blogcritics and is an academic professional for the University of Illinois. He is a freelance columnist who blogs at Part-Time Pundit and the executive director of The Tumaini Foundation which helps AIDS orphans in Tanzania with education.
He is the current owner of BlogSoldiers, a blog-only traffic exchange.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Christmas, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
22 Responses to “ACLU Against Free Speech if the Speech is Religious”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Give me a break Jeff! Everyone knows the yearly attack on Christmas from the ACLU. It is a tradition by now!
– You’ve cited one example from a previous year, yet you use the plural “towns” and “schools”.
– Displaying religious icons on public grounds is at least a step or two beyond “acknowledging”. If you call the town’s office and ask “Is December 25th a holiday?”, I’m sure they could legally acknowledge “Yes, it is Christmas.”
If done properly, this proposal could avoid the establishment arguments, but I still fail to see why public land should be set aside for such a purpose.
What’s so bad about limiting holidays to private celebrations among private citizens on private grounds with private funds?
Please provide a citation.
Blatant strawman. No one is limiting your freedoms as an individual. You just can’t use your official position celebrate or advertise your personal beliefs.
With so much practice, it shouldn’t be too much to ask for an editorial that doesn’t contain exaggerations and fallacies.
BTW, impressive feat: responding to my post an hour before I wrote it.
If official position, you mean a citizen of the United States, then I have a problem with that interpretation.
The government has no right, at all, to tell people when and where they can practice their religion. The government owns near 2/3rds of the land in this country, are those supposed to be considered “no free speech zones”?
I would too. No, I meant any position at your university or in your government which effectively makes you an agent of the state.
I agree. In fact, I’d love to hear (in the other thread) your position on this recent incident.
Nope, they are among the best places on which to speak. But that does not change the fact that the establishment clause bars governments and their agents from creating, supporting, or condoning any expression of a particular religion. If they are very careful they can dance around this with general purpose expressions, but it is not a simple matter.
It used to be a simple matter. People used to know the difference between endorsing a religion and allowing one to be expressed. Thanks to the ACLU rewriting history many people have forgotten or are afraid. That is why it isn’t simple anymore.
You just can’t use your official position celebrate or advertise your personal beliefs.
Do you realize that before the founding of this country to about 1947, everyone exercised their 1st Amendment right to publicly express their religion? Including military, elected officials of state and federal governments, Presidents and judges.
Freedom of, and from religion, was enjoyed by everyone, everywhere, at all times.
Since that “Wall” has been “discovered”, our constitutional right has been in freefall.
Our religious rights have been regulated, restricted and legislated out of existence.
Endorse: To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction
I’m not sure how you can construe a public official placing or sanctioning the placement of a religious icon on public grounds as anything other than “endorsement”.
As for the prevailing opinion of the courts, there isn’t a cut & dried consensus on the issue, but the general rule of thumb is that any religious message should be an incidental part of a larger, secular message. A religious message by itself violates the establishment clause.
I strongly encourage you to read that last link. I found it extremely informative.
“What’s so bad about limiting holidays to private celebrations among private citizens on private grounds with private funds?” Jeff Molby
Except for the detail that it is a violation of their human rights according to both the free expression clause of the U.S. Constitution and the public expression of religion clause of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, I suppose nothing. What is a little tyranny with the ACLU?
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.
If official position, you mean a citizen of the United States, then I have a problem with that interpretation.
You haven’t read the new interpretation?
Illegal aliens have constitutional rights.
Terrorists have constitutional rights (doesn’t matter that they have never been to this country).
But American citizens that are living and working on American soil, cannot exercise their constitutional rights if they are working for the government that is charged with protecting those rights.
JCB, the only thing I would critique on your excellent article is that the ACLU are against religious speech, implyed in the title. It seems to me that the only religions they don’t like are Christianity and Judaism. If it is Islam they will protect that speech for sure.
“What’s so bad about limiting holidays to private celebrations among private citizens on private grounds with private funds?”
What’s wrong with celebrating Christmas on public grounds? What is wrong with the federal endorsement of Christmas? Are you forced to celebrate the birth of Jesus as a result? No. Which is why the Framers who wrote the establishment clause saw nothing wrong with endorsing Christmas or Christianity in general.
“The establishment clause bars governments and their agents from creating, supporting, or condoning any expression of a particular religion.”
No it doesn’t. It merely prevents the goverment from forcing religion on anyone. Otherwise the Constitution contradicts itself, since it also states “the free exercise thereof”. If it is limited, then its not free.
“Endorse: To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction”
Endorse: Not written in the constitution.
The courts have stated that religious messages placed on public grounds (where secular messages are otherwise prohibited) violates the establishment clause unless the benefit to religion is “indirect, remote, and incidental.”
In Lynch v. Donnelly, a nativity scene was allowed because it was merely part of a larger, secular display. In Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU and in Berkley, MI, that was not the case.
“the free exercise thereof” has been interpreted as being applicable to individuals, not governments entities or their agents. A mayor has every right to decorate his private property however he sees fit, but it is a violation of the establishment clause for him to exercise his private rights when acting in a public capacity.
Understood. I was just using Jay’s word in response to his assertion. I didn’t mean to imply that the word held special legal significance.
There is no war on Christmas. This is just a scare tactic by Americas religious extreme to enforce religion on the rest of us. The ACLU is just protecting America from a singular view of Christmas.
You can worship or carol to your hearts content, just don’t require the government to favor one religion over others, it’s quite simple.
As far as what Christmas really stands for…it stands for a rich tradition of beliefs that are largely pagan. One thing it is not is the birthday of Christ. It in fact was the birthday of the Persian/Roman god Mithra and was taken over by Christians as they came to power in Rome. Christ’s life story is amazingly similar to Mithra who existed for 800 years before the first Christians.
There is no good evidence at all that Christ ever existed as a true person. That period of world history was full of gods and other legenday figures created out of the imaginations of the people of that time.
The real reason for the season is the yearly coming of the Winter Solstice, where the darkness and cold of winter finally gives way to the light and warmth of a new year.
Please provide a citation.
“The courts have stated that religious messages placed on public grounds (where secular messages are otherwise prohibited) violates the establishment clause unless the benefit to religion is “indirect, remote, and incidental.”
The courts have misinterpreted the Constitution on many occasions, so I’m sorry, but this is hardly a compelling argument.
“The ACLU is just protecting America from a singular view of Christmas.”
Which is not the ACLUs place. The ACLU supposedly protects civil liberties. Name one of your civil liberties that is being imposed upon by our singular view of Christmas. Which, by the way, Christmas (keyword: Christ) isn’t suppose to be all inclusive. It celebrates Christ.
“just don’t require the government to favor one religion over others, it’s quite simple.”
Unfortunately the government always has endorsed Christianity over other religions, the same Framers who wrote the establishment clause. They also did it without violating anyone’s civil liberties, or forcing Christianity (the worship of Christ) on anyone whatsover. And you’ll have to live with it I’m afraid, because its still a FEDERAL holiday.
“As far as what Christmas really stands for…it stands for a rich tradition of beliefs that are largely pagan.”
No it doesn’t. It stands for the birth of Christ. It may have been hyjacked but it is still representative of the birth of Christ. The fact that December 25 is not really His birthday is irrelevant. I don’t always celebrate my birthday on the exact date I was born, but its a celebration nonetheless.
“There is no good evidence at all that Christ ever existed as a true person.”
The overwhelming majority of the scholar/historian community both secular and non disagree with you:
“Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.”
Since it is generally accepted by most in the historian/scholar communtity that the historical figure of Jesus did in fact exist, the burden of proof is on you to disprove them if you claim otherwise.
[]
You’re free to challenge and disagree with the courts’ interpretation, of course, but their authority on the matter makes the ACLU’s position quite compelling.
The ACLU, the courts, and many of us believe that a singular view of Christmas, sponsored or endorse by governments or their agents, is a violation of the establishment clause.
I realize you disagree with this interpretation, but that is the answer to your question. There really isn’t a conspiracy.
Indeed. Sailnsouth made numerous unsupported (some even irrelevant) allegations.
“The ACLU, the courts, and many of us believe that a singular view of Christmas, sponsored or endorse by governments or their agents, is a violation of the establishment clause.”
But which of YOUR civil liberties were violated?
None. I don’t live in Berkley. My town and its agents respect the prevailing interpretation of the establishment clause.
“I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.” Jeff Molby
It is not my interpretation as it is what the U.S. Constitution states as clear as day unless you can explain to me how you can restrict freedom of religious expression without restricting freedom of expression.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
As you see everyone has the freedom either alone or in community with others and in PUBLIC or private, to manifest his religion in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.
You just happen to be backing a tyrannical teaching. You are certainly not the first person to do so.
I don’t dispute that. My assertion is based on a different definition of “public“. You’re referring to “8. open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public.” and you are absolutely, unquestionably correct that this manner of public religious expression is protected by the free exercise clause.
However, I am referring to “public” as in “4. of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, esp. as a government officer” and this manner of public religious expression, according to the prevailing opinion of the courts, prohibited by the establishment clause with only a few exceptions.