Tell me about your mother....
Thanks for doing this. Whenever you find yourself in disagreement with a post at my site, please feel free to leave a comment or debate us on it. You never know, someone as intelligent as you might just change my mind on an issue, or at least make me think twice.
Interesting interview. I agree with some of what he says (in that the ACLU sometimes appears to have lost focus and is more into rabble-rousing than protection of civil liberties), but as was probably expected, I disagree with his views on state and religion.
First, he mentions the establishment clause, but fails to read that "in pari materia" with the free exercise clause. If a state can infuse its laws with religion, then it's necessarily promoting one religion to the exclusion of another, which necessarily infringes upon the right of a citizen to exercise freely a religion different from that promoted by the state. When two points of law clash, the one restricting rights must give way to the one protecting rights. Religion in government actually RESTRICTS the free exercise of religion.
Second, he also mentions the 10th Amendment ("powers not delegated to the United States..."), but fails to mention the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...." So, his argument that the states can invoke religion in their laws when the federal Congress may not, is simply wrong. A well-established rule of interpretation of laws is that a later-passed law supercedes a contradictory previously-passed law; thus, the 14th trumps the 10th, and "No State" can violated the establishment clause.
Third, the Declaration of Independence does not mention "the Creator," it mentions "their Creator," a subtle yet noticeable nod to the idea that each person makes his own decision about his own faith. This MUST NOT be used as a means to equate the Christian concept of God into the laws of the nation; rather, it should be used to recognize the multiplicity of faiths (and non-faiths) that exist and which were given "free exercise" by the drafters of the Constitution.
Fifth, "If you take God out of hte government, you hand the power to the government to be able to give and take your liberties."
What do you think government's purpose is? ITS ONLY PURPOSE? Government exists to restrict true liberty (read: anarchy, might-makes-right, post-apocalyptic Mad Max type of society) for the protection of the people. Governments, since the dawn of time, have had the "power ... to give and take your liberties." There is simply no other purpose to the government besides providing for the safety of its people and the land within its borders, and this sole purpose necessarily requires the restriction of some liberties for the greater good. You will not find a single society on the face of the earth that does not allow its government to "give and take" the liberties of its citizens.
Sixth, someone please stop conservatives from charging the "leftists" with trying to stamp out religion in "private life" simply because some people don't want religion in our government. I don't want religion in my government, but I
... but I have no problem with people believing in religion on their own, private time and in their own, private places. Most people desirous to rid government of religious influence think the same way. Do what you want on your own time, just don't force me to do what you do. So just because I believe in (and have constitutional and jurisprudential authority for) the doctrine of separation of church and state, doesn't mean I'm waging a "war on Christianity" or trying to stamp out religion wherever it may lie. That's simply a marketing ploy to rouse the middle-Americans into more conservative politics, and is not factually accurate. It's Munchausen's syndrome -- act like a victim and you get attention. It's just not true.
Yes, I noticed the mysteriously-disappearing "fourth" in my list. Sorry about that.
boomr - a very well-though out response, well done. However, I think you are missing some of the point.
The ACLU is, in fact, waging a "war against Christianity" ... you can clearly see a dichotomy in the "civil liberties" they defend vs those they impede.
You also raise a valid point in addressing "Fifth, "If you take God out of the government, you hand the power to the government to be able to give and take your liberties."" ... while I agree to some point, the difference is that you need a reference point to weigh your liberties vs the damage they can inflict if unrestricted.
Overall, I still vehemently oppose the ACLU. Not saying they never do good, but overall I consider them a negative.
/TJ
The Munchausen reference is an intersting one- but doesn't that apply both ways?
Your remarks though, have merit. That said, at what point do we not cater to small minorities? For example, language comes to mind. At what point do not need to cater to every language speaker? Why should we not have a national language?
Canada wastes billions on language laws in provinces that are overwhemingly English- do we need to follow suit?
The language issue is one which I do, in fact, believe should be an issue for each state. This solves the Canada/two language problem, by allowing Floridians to print their laws in Spanish and English, while allowing Midwesterners to keep English-only. I come from a state in which the laws and Constitution were writted solely in French until 1825, and were often written in both (and used in court) until the beginning of the 20th century -- and to a lesser extent those French sources are cited to this day. It made sense to have that system, since there were so many Francophones, and since our system of law was based upon the Code Napoleon. Now that there aren't so many, it makes sense to have them in English only. This is a regional issue, not a national one. Let the 10th Amendment run with this one.
As for the ACLU waging war on Christianity, I can't speak coherently on that because I don't follow the actions of the ACLU with the same zeal that others do. But if you're talking about the ACLU's moves to restrict Christmas displays ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, then that has absolutely nothing to do with "private" exercise of religion and everything to do with the establishment clause.
This is what I don't really understand about the Christian right: why is it that they scream "free exercise" when faced with such alleged restrictions of the practice of religion, yet don't pay attention to the "establishment clause" when seeking to put God into everything legislated? I don't understand the need that some people have to force others to act in a religious manner. What makes your BELIEFS (not facts, but beliefs) more important than mine, to the extent that everyone has to follow them as per the force of law?
I also think the end result of melding church and state is extremely dangerous -- and is one which SC&A and every other conservative pundit has shouted against as "evil" and "morally inferior" when applied to a different religion, a different state. That's an example of the bottom of the slippery slope -- we're still at the top (or maybe just a couple of steps down). And I don't understand why the Christian right doesn't see that they could become the flip side of what Islam has become in much of the middle east, if allowed to run roughshod over the political branches.
Either you're for free exercise for all, or free exercise for none. Either you're for both religion clauses in the First Amendment, or you're for neither. You can't have it both ways, but it seems that exactly what some people want.
"... the difference is that you need a reference point to weigh your liberties vs the damage they can inflict if unrestricted."
But that reference point must not -- in a political state -- be a measurement of damage to the soul, but damage to people and the state. Adultery, divorce, homosexuality, not respecting your mother and father, not keeping the Sabbath holy, use of contraception, these are al
... these are all sins that according to Judeo-Christian doctrine cause damage to the soul, yet none of them pose a great deal of direct danger to the safety of the people or the land within the state. These are all moral decisions for the individual, not the collective. There's no reason to thrust your individual decision on these issues on the rest of the citizenry.
The only thing the ACLU has done is to take away my civil liberities with their twisting of their wording to give it a different meaning. DOWN WITH THE ACLU. I am not a criminal therefore the ACLU is not interested in me.
Hmmm... The fact that the FBI gathers information on the ACLU members is proof in itself that we need the ACLU.
Funny how in law school the ACLU is like a social club. If you join the federalists you are a pariah. THe ACLU is all bluster. they force the weak to cave by pointing fingers and saying 'that man is against *the people*'
sound familiar
Sometimes, the man IS against the people.
Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get me... just because it may not be possible to prove intent to disenfranchise a class of voters doesn't mean that the intent does not exist.
Commenting by HaloScan
