Interview With Jordan Lorence of ADF
Posted on September 5, 2005
A big thank you to Greg Scott for arranging this interview. Jordan Lorence is a Senior Council attorney at the Alliance Defense Fund.
I started out the interview with the basic questions.
Jay: “How did you get involved with ADF?”
Jordan:
I’ve been working with Religious Liberty cases since 1984 after graduating law school. ADF formed in 1993, and got off the ground in January of 1994. They asked me to come on board and I applied for a grant early on. They offered me a job in 2001.”
Jay: “How did ADF come into existence?”
Jordan:
“They formed basically as a strategy to promote religious liberty, traditional family values, and the value of life. Their main concern was the dramatic loss of religious freedom in America’s courts, partly through actions of groups such as the ACLU. 30 ministries came together in 1993 to launch ADF. Some of the founding members included the late Dr. Bill Bright, the late Larry Burkett, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and the late Marlin Maddoux. Shortly after forming they hired Alan Sears to be president.”
Jay: “What do you think of Representative Hostettler’s proposal of thePublic Expression of Religion Act?”
Jordan:
“H. R. 2679? We support that. A lot of abuse has taken place by attorneys dealing with the Establishment Clause. The ACLU has definitely abused it by using it as leverage in out of court settlements. They make a lot of ground just through threatening a lawsuit, and settling it out of court.”
Jay: “This legislation only applies to the Establishment Clause. Is that correct? It would not apply to the Religious Expression Clause?”
Jordan:
That is correct.
Jay: “Would this not affect legitimate cases in which the government actually abuses the Establishment Clause? Would this legislation affect the ADF in any way?
Jordan:
It really wouldn’t affect the ADF very much, if at all. What has happened is an abuse of the system. Like I said earlier, a lot of the Establishment Clause cases have been settled out of court through the use of threatening lawsuits. A lot of these cases actually don’t have enough merit to pass Court muster. This new legislation works towards preventing that abuse. If it passes, it will make the ACLU think twice about threatening these types of cases. It probably won’t stop them, but it will force them to make sure they are completely legitimate.
Jay: A lot of people want to know why we can’t sue the ACLU as a group of people for its destructive and dangerous actions to America. Micheal Savage has mentioned RICO lawsuits. Could the ACLU be sued for bias toward Christianity?
Jordan:
That would be a very difficult lawsuit, and frankly one that probably wouldn’t be won. It is just the way the courts are set up to work. I highly doubt a case like that could be made effectively. Even the bloodiest axe murderer gets representation.
Jay: I hear the ACLU cry alot about the Freedom of Information Act, yet when called the ACLU I was told they would not release their Policy guide. I was told it was for internal purposes only, and not for the public. Does the Freedom of Information Act not apply to them also?
Jordan:
No, the Freedom of Information Act only applies to the government. The ACLU is a private organization, and don’t legally have to reveal anything they don’t want to. As a private organization they hold that right.
Jay: In order to be have their non-profit status, don’t they have to be non-partisan?
Jordan:
They claim to be non-partisan.
Jay: Are they? In many cases such as for pro-life protesters they seem to have chosen sides.
Jordan:
I well just put it this way; Some of the biggest cases of religious liberty are about equal access for religious groups to meet on the same grounds as others. There have been five cases in the Supreme Court since 1981. These were cases that were very straight forward cases, in which ADF has been involved. The ACLU are always very reluctant to support one side or the other in these cases. In my opinion, only ideology could prevent this. Another example is just as you mentioned, in cases involving pro-life parties.
Jay: If you don’t mind, I have a few questions from some other people.
Jordan: Sure.
Jay: “Nedd of stoptheaclu.org has this question:
My big issue that I could use some clarity on is how we can explain to people, Constitutionally speaking, how there is no 1st amendment right to, say, pornography or same sex marriage. Since I identify myself with the Constitution Party (with a slant of Libertarianism), I believe most of what our government does is unconstitutional. The government has no Constitutional authority to provide health care, Medicare, Social Security retirement, health care, education, force Americans to wear seat belts or get vaccinations, etc. However, I believe it is a benefit to America to affirm traditional marriage and not homosexual marriage, for example, or to keep porn, particularly child porn, out of our land, for another example.
Those are just two examples where the ACLU poses a problem and bastardizes the Constitution to suit themselves. I’d like to know how to be able to explain why a marriage amendment and a ban on porn is constitutional. This bugs me more than anything else when trying to deal with the liberals who write me.
Jordan:
When polygamists tried the courts the Supeme Court said that marraige was defined, and always has been defined as being between one man and one woman. A constitutional Amendment would define this inherently. As far as pornography goes, the Supreme Court has said it can be prosecuted. The question is how far, or what constitutes as legal pornography. Child pornography is definitely outside those bounds.
Jay: Kender, a fellow friend, and blogger has this question.
I feel the ACLU promotes Secular Humanism, a religion by all definitions, including SCOTUS. Why has nobody taken THEM to court on this?
Jordan:
Secular humanism is a religion for a tax exempt status, however I think it would be troubling to make an Establishment Clause case out of something involving it. What needs to happen is to shrink down the number of establishment jursidiction cases. I think something like that would be counterproductive. Sort of like cutting off the nose to spite the face, if you know what I mean.
Jay: So what can people do to help fight the ACLU?
Jordan:
The best thing people can do is support organizations like the The Alliance Defense Fund trying to battle the ACLU in court and law schools to be a counter force. What you do at stoptheaclu.com and stoptheaclu.org is also important in making the general public aware of the actions of the ACLU. That is the reason Alan Sears has written his new book, ACLU Vs. America.
Another thing people can do is write their Congress to support judicial nominees that will strictly uphold the Consitution.
We agree with these ways to fight the ACLU. We want to thank Mr. Lorence for taking the time for our interview, and for Greg Scott arranging it.
Right now, John Roberts has been nominated to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He is very well qualified for this position.
Sign The ACLJ’s petition to support John Roberts.
And contact your Congressmen to support him, and the Public Expression of Religion Act (H.R. 2679).
Help us expand our scope in exposing the radical agenda of the ACLU. Help us get an ad in the Washington Times. Our goal is $2500.00. We already have $984.00 donated.
|
|
Linked at Basil’s and Cafe Oregano and Outside The Beltway
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
8 Responses to “Interview With Jordan Lorence of ADF”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Great job on the interview. I love reading about someone that is fighting the Anti-Christ Legions United. The petition has been signed.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
That’s a HELLUVA interview, friend! Thanks for sharing. VERY interesting, to say the very least. Blog ON, bro…
That was an very interesting interview Jay. You are getting pretty good at that!
The late Dr. Bill Bright, the late Larry Burkett, the late Marlin Maddoux. Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy and Alan Sears. Every one of these men are or were great!
Thanks.
Congratulations, you’re at about 39% of your projected goal. I think this is fantastic, Jay. Great job.
ACLU MEMBER HERE,AND DAMN PROUD. am i proud of the aclu all the time, NO, BUT WE NEED THEM, what is the alternative, who will support “unpopular” issues,we are a democratic country, if we were a facist country there would be JUST ONE OPINION, JUST ONE RULE, IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT.
Great interview: I will link to it! — gunjam
To the ACLU Lawyer Blogger :
I’ll tell you what I don’t want! I don’t want the jack booted , hob-nailed boot of the ACLU on the necks of people of faith, who are trying to raise their children with judeo christian principals and who , also have the constitutional right to wear or place signs of their faith whereever they like in public!!! We did just fine before anyone ever heard of you. Your activity has been a fast slide to degredation for this nation. We can do VERY WELL WITHOUT YOU !!! I pray that soon we will have that chance! L.J. Ferguson