Is the ACLU evil now, Mr. Carter?
In the May 2006 issue of Christianity Today, Stephen L. Carter penned the article "The ACLU Is Not Evil". Carter's argument appears to be that throwing the word evil around is quite alienating and that, perhaps, we Christians could tone the rhetoric down a bit. There's definitely truth there. You can call a spade a spade without hitting people over the head with one. The problem comes when Carter uses the example of the ACLU to support his argument for a kinder, gentler public discourse.
Carter hails the ACLU as an almost impartial arbiter of the first amendment, referencing cases where the ACLU has defended Christians and their right to free speech. There are some serious logical flaws with this example. First of all, it presumes that the ACLU is really concerned with free speech and not with specific social issues. Oh, to be so naive.
An editorial written yesterday by John Leo, outlines the case against such an assumption. As it turns out the ACLU is riddled with special interest lobbies that make donations and influence the practices and policies of the union. Dissent within the ACLU's ranks is silenced, initially by culture and most recently through institutionalized policy.
Meyers [a former ACLU board member] leveled many criticisms at Romero [executive director of the ACLU], among them: that he is intolerant of dissent, withholds financial information from the board, and cuts funding of ACLU affiliates if they are critical of him. He also says Romero instructed Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU, to create a policy restricting board members' rights to speak directly to staff. Meyers said that policy was twice changed. Now questions by board members have to be voted on and agreed to by a majority of the executive committee before Romero will agree to answer.
Meyer suggests that the ACLU has strayed from its traditional free speech roots and is now more closely defined by its politicking for "identity groups".
The second problem with Dr. Carter's ACLU example is a bit more complex. Carter proposes that if the ACLU does some things that Christians would define as good then it must not be evil. To which I say, defending a Christian doesn't make the ACLU "good" or even "neutral" any more than sleeping in a garage makes you a car. The sum of actions levied against Judeo-Christian values is much more of a defining factor in determining the character of the ACLU, as an organization, than the few cases Carter cites. The BTK strangler didn't kill his own daughter, does that negate his other evil acts? Does is mitigate the characterization of him as an evil man?
Leo gives an example of how the union really works.
...the ACLU now has issue-oriented lobbies inside it. They are called "projects" and include the "Reproductive Freedom Project," the "Women's Rights Project" and the "Lesbian and Gay Rights Project." The influence of the projects, and the money they bring in, often tend to sway the ACLU away from its once primary concern about free speech.
For instance, the ACLU came out early against the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a conspiracy statute aimed at the Mafia. RICO always had the potential to be used to curb political dissent, and when defenders of abortion started to use it against anti-abortion protesters, the ACLU waffled and looked the other way. Harvey Silverglate, of the Massachusetts ACLU, said sympathy of abortion rights caused the national ACLU to drop its guard on a serious violation of political freedom.
In 2003, after 17 years of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion protesters couldn't be punished as racketeers under RICO. No thanks to the ACLU. The organization still defends free speech, but not always when that speech is directed against a group or an interest it cares about.
On May 12th, Nedd at www.stoptheaclu.org wrote a piece disecting Carter's argument that brilliantly exposes the ACLU's record. As for me, I find the simplest explanation for Professor Carter's confusion in the words of Isaiah 5:20. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil' that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
The western world is confused by ever flattering voices of "learned" men who have redefined "good" by selling the idea that freedom is the chaotic and unfettered liberty to act upon whatever desire you can conceive. True freedom, Christianity argues, comes from learning not to give into your desires but to become master over them. And in a society where "evil" means refusing to embrace degrading carnal behavior and uninhibited self-gratification, it is easy to understand Carter's mistake.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
he's related to Jimmy right?
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/01 @ 06:40 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dayna— 2006/06/01 @ 08:07 PM — (Reply)
I think the bottom line is that absolute power corrupts people and that goes from the halls of government to the Hollywood exec's office to the boardroom of the ACLU. It takes a truly godly person to forgo his own interests for those of another.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/01 @ 08:20 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/06/01 @ 08:22 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/06/01 @ 08:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2006/06/02 @ 06:41 AM — (Reply)
Your conclusions seemed based more on opinion pieces by rightwing idealogues than on the facts. The few examples you give of actual ACLU actions are not even factually accurate.
If you'd spent many years closely involved with the ACLU as I have, you'd know that the ACLU fights just as hard for the individual free exercise of religion, including Christianity, as the ACLU fights against government establishment, sponsorship, and/or endorsement or religion. For a few of the many factual examples proving my point, seee this link: The ACLU Fights for Christians
Comment by Allen Asch— 2006/06/16 @ 01:09 AM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/06/16 @ 04:25 AM — (Reply)
Nedd (referenced above in the post) has links to the same list and addresses your argument - if you clicked the link to his article and read his writeup, you would already know this.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/16 @ 05:40 AM — (Reply)
I already read Nedd’s article and his reference to my webpage. That's why I wrote:
Nedd does not address even one of the more than two dozen examples on my webpage. All he says about the many factual examples I provide is “Allen Asch lists in the first 23 cases where the ACLU defended Christians.” That's not even a complete sentence.
Instead of addressing the specific facts I provide, Nedd gives factually inaccurate descriptions of a couple other ACLU cases. For example, Nedd faults the ACLU for making the Tangipahoa Parish School Board follow not only the law, but its own written promises in court. You can see the school board’s promises at this link: Consent order
You can see how the school board broke its promises here: Complaint
Because Nedd has no real facts to back him up, he falls back next on specious reasoning. He compares my dozens of examples with the thousands of ACLU cases and then just assumes all the other cases are evil with no factual basis. He then concludes that my dozens of factual examples are not enough to overcome the evil he just assumed in the other cases.
In fact, I provide only those examples that make the news and show up on the internet. And, most of the thousands of ACLU cases to which Nedd refers have nothing to do with Christianity one way or the other.
My main point, however, that neither you nor Nedd address is that the ACLU is only against government religion, not religion in general. Can you or Nedd or anybody show me a case where the ACLU was supposedly anti-religion that did not actually involve government religion?
Comment by Allen Asch— 2006/06/16 @ 09:16 AM — (Reply)
As for the 'conclusions I have drawn', they are based on Christian doctrine. Other than referencing the writings of Nedd and Leo, I only offer the following conclusions:
(1) defending a Christian doesn't make the ACLU "good" or even "neutral" any more than sleeping in a garage makes you a car
(2) The sum of actions levied against Judeo-Christian values is much more of a defining factor in determining the character of the ACLU, as an organization, than the few cases Carter cites
(3) western world is confused by ever flattering voices of "learned" men who have redefined "good" by selling the idea that freedom is the chaotic and unfettered liberty to act upon whatever desire you can conceive
I think there is a very basic misunderstanding here about Christianity and how evil is defined within the Christian paradigm.
Within the Christian construct, there is no neutral. In fact, the argument can be well made that no entity which abandons Christian tenets is good - that includes governments, school boards, the ACLU and probably most manmade organizations. To argue that the ACLU supports Christians while it also argues for the rights of NAMBLA is ridiculous. While Carter and others (I imagine you might fall into this group) would argue that the ACLU is an impartial organization, I would argue that there is no such thing within the limits of Christian thought. Furthermore, there is no prize for being neutral in Christianity - in fact, being lukewarm is condemnable. Objectivity has never been the most highly prized value of the Christian God.
I'm not suggesting that manmade organizations can ever qualify as being wholly good (in the Biblical sense) but I am suggesting that to be engaged in anything less than a completely Christian agenda certainly eliminates one from the runnning.
Having said all that, I am more than willing to investigate Nedd's assertions further. Until I can reconcile guaranteeing that pedophiles have a government protected platform with Christianity, I'll stand by my opinion.
Another interesting side note - the fact that the ACLU has to issue a press release to explain its position on the NAMBLA case is like the racist who defends himself by saying "I have a black friend..." If you truly are what you say then no explanation should be necessary - by the fruit do we recognize the tree.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/16 @ 10:46 AM — (Reply)
Cate,
I'm having problems accepting a couple of your premises. For example, are you faulting the ACLU for not having the promotion of Christianity as its goal? That seems an unfair criterion. The goal of the ACLU is to promote the fundamental liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution. The ACLU is no more evil than the US Constitution itself.
Also, I'm not sure because of your phrasing, but are you arguing that it's impossible to be good without being Christian? (that's what it sounds like when you write "the argument can be well made that no entity which abandons Christian tenets is good.")
Are there no good Jews? No good Muslims? No good atheists? No good agnostics? No good Buddhists? No good Hindus?
In fact, one of the people who most personified good in the 20th Century was a Hindu, in my opinion. Are you saying Gandhi wasn't good?
I also have problems with your premise that "If you truly are what you say then no explanation should be necessary." First, the sentence is self-contradictory because if "you truly are what you say" then you've already said something to explain who "you truly are" and, thus, by definition, you've explained something already.
Further, if "no explanation should be necessary" then what is the point of your blog? What is the point of your comments? Why are you explaining things rights on this webpage if "no explanation should be necessary?"
As best I can tell, your assertion that "no explanation should be necessary" is really a protestation that you do not want to be confused with the facts. As proof, you do not deal with any of the facts in the ACLU Press release. Instead, you make a totally inapt analogy to "the racist who defends himself by saying 'I have a black friend.'"
If you really want an apt analogy to the ACLU's involvement in the NAMBLA suit, ask yourself:
If you believe the First Amendment should protect people who only advocate changing a law, then you agree with the ACLU position in the NAMBLA suit.
Are you aware of the facts of the NAMBLA case? If not, then it is certainly untrue that "no explanation should be necessary." The facts of the case begin very brutally in 1997 with the rape and murder of a ten-year-old boy named Jeffrey Curley. Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari were convicted of the crime. Not only are both men in prison for life, but Jeffrey Curley's parents successfully sued them and won a multimillion dollar verdict against them. The ACLU had no involvement in defending Charles Jaynes or Salvatore Sicari, criminally or civilly.
Because Charles Jaynes had visited the NAMBLA website, Jeffrey Curley's parents decided to sue NAMBLA and the individuals who run it. The NAMBLA website, "contained materials that advocated for legislative change of age-of-consent laws concerning sex between adults and adolescents and included statements by various writers, including Allen Ginsburg and Camille Paglia, references to academic journals about sexuality, some fiction and poetry, and a clear statement against coercive sex or breaking the law." [emphasis added] See this link: ACLUM Agrees to Represent NAMBLA in Freedom of Speech Case
So, the NAMBLA site was advocating nothing illegal, though even advocating illegal acts is protected by the First Amendment except in the narrow case where the advocacy is directed at producing immediate lawless action and is likely to produce that result. See, for example, what the Supreme Court said in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002):
"The government may suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law only if 'such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.' There is here no attempt, incitement, solicitation, or conspiracy. The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or impulses and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct." [emphasis added and citation omitted]
It's also important to point out what it says (at this link: ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations) in another ACLU press release on the case:
"In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children."
Even the father of the boy who was raped and murdered respects the position of the ACLU in this case. One article on the case provides a very interesting quote from Jeffery Curley's father, Robert Curley. Even though he is suing the guys represented by the ACLU, the article says he "is surprisingly sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit: 'I really do have a lot of respect for them,' Curley told The Boston Globe. 'They are very consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage.'"
Now that you have the facts, do you see why it's untrue to claim that "no explanation should be necessary?"
And, speaking of facts, how about you provide some of the facts I requested? Can you or Nedd or anybody show me a case where the ACLU was supposedly anti-religion that did not actually involve GOVERNMENT religion?
Comment by Allen Asch— 2006/06/17 @ 02:16 AM — (Reply)
Carter's article was written in CHRISTIANITY TODAY. It was aimed at a Christian audience that believes the Biblical teaching that there is none good but God and that man and the works of men's hands fall short of that ideal. Further, Christianity is an exclusive religion - it does not allow for acceptance of competing ideologies.
1)Meyer, quoted in the Leo article clearly disagrees with your statement about the fundamental purpose of the ACLU - I refer you again to his comments in the original post.
2) Yes, Mr. Ansch, Christians believe that there are values prioritized above the US Constitution that demand allegiance.
3) I wrote that arguably (according to Biblical teachings) entities that abandon Christian TENETS would not qualify as good. The key word is tenets. The ideas. The teachings. The principles. The eternal truths. I never said anything about individuals. You did. Of course, there are people who are "good" (or as good as men can be) of every faith and even without faith just as there are evil people of every walk of life. Christians embrace the belief that this faith is divine above all other belief systems.
4) You are correct to disassemble my poorly written sentence. Semantics is a fun game but the point remains. Why does the ACLU have to issue press releases to explain itself?
5) The point of my blog isn't the point of this post and the implication that writing a blog is analogous to the ACLU's press release is ridiculous because I didn't do something very public that offended many of my countrymates and then issue an explanatory statement to defend my chosen course of actions. Again, you are muddying the issue and adding to that ad hominem attacks. Nice.
6) We will never come to a consensus on the NAMBLA case. It is a perfect illustration of the difference between being right and doing right. Within the confines of the law, the ACLU may have been technically right to defend NAMBLA's online publications. But being right in this case is not doing right by the children who may suffer at the sick hands of the pedophiles for whom NAMBLA is a stepping stone to illegal acts.
Being right (under the law) is not always doing right. Now that you have the facts, do you understand? Alexis de Tocqueville made the astute observation that America would need religion more than any other land because morality would need to provide inhibitions where the law would grant personal freedom to do the unthinkable. And here we are neary 200 years later discussing how "right" and "good" it is of the ACLU to defend the freedom of speech of an organization of pedophiles.
7) I will research the facts, Mr. Ansch, because in spite of your personal attacks and insulting insinuations, I want facts. I want to know for myself. That is one of the reasons (since you asked) that I made my online diary public - because I wanted meaningful exchanges that would expand my knowledge and understanding of the world. I don't claim to be an authority only an opinionated observer. So why aren't you hailing my free speech?
Also you didn't answer the question I posed about the Leo article and Meyers quotes... what say ye?
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/17 @ 12:38 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/06/17 @ 04:45 PM — (Reply)
ACLU fights child molester banishment (You'll notice the outspoken 'right-wing ideologue' in this case is DEM. councilman Vernon Brown
More on the NAMBLA case and the sort of guides to pedophilia that they were publishing for Curley's killers
Speaking to Meyers' claims of special interest infiltration - check out the ACLU of Wichita. It has only 2 committees listed on its webpage... A goup for youth and an LGBT committee.
The ACLU of Kansas & Western Mo is selling a gay parenting book
The ACLU of Maryland's homepage is headlined with a pic of Same-sex couples celebrating a court victory
In Illinois, the ACLU invites you to march with pride (offering free ACLU t-shirts to those in attendance)
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/17 @ 04:59 PM — (Reply)
Comment by A Conservative Realist— 2006/06/17 @ 05:24 PM — (Reply)
Cate,
I'm sorry if you interpreted my comments as "personal attacks and insulting insinuations." I've been arguing these issues online for quite some time and I always try very hard to avoid personal attacks and insults. I know very little about you, so attacking you personally would be silly. I disagreed with what you wrote, maybe even "attacked" what you wrote, but I meant no disrespect to you. I apologize if my tone was overly aggressive though, in my defense, the starting point of our discussion basically was your assumption that I am evil.
Regarding your question about the John Leo article, it's more of what I meant when I said that the few examples you give of actual ACLU actions are not even factually accurate. For example, Leo wrote:
"RICO always had the potential to be used to curb political dissent, and when defenders of abortion started to use it against anti-abortion protesters, the ACLU waffled and looked the other way" and
"In 2003, after 17 years of litigation, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion protesters couldn't be punished as racketeers under RICO. No thanks to the ACLU."
But Leo does not accurately describe the ACLU's involvement in the case to which he refers. In fact during the "17 years of litigation" to which Leo refers, the ACLU submitted a brief to the Supreme Court asking the Court to respect the constitutional rights of both parties. See this link: ACLU amicus brief in NOW v Scheindler in support of neither party
In fact, the ACLU consistently supports the free speech rights of anti-abortion speakers. See this link: ACLU backs abortion protester cited for graphic poster
Or this one: ACLU Defends Christian Group's Anti-Abortion Ads On Phoenix Buses
In the case of abortion clinics, however, the ACLU must protect both the free speech rights of the protesters and the reproductive right of the patients. It's as if people were protesting outside voting booths in a way that stopped people from being able to vote because two fundamental rights are involved. If you read the ACLU brief, you'll see the ACLU argued forcefully to allow protesters a full opportunity to express their views to clinic visitors while protecting the rights of patients to get access with actually being harassed.
None of those details make it into your quote or the Leo article. The actual ACLU position is far different from Leo's statement that the ACLU "waffled and looked the other way" and the Supreme Court decisions respecting the rights of both sides were partially "thanks to the ACLU."
Similarly, your analysis of the NAMBLA case is based on sources with faulty information and continues to avoid the difficult line that must be drawn in the case. The NRO article to which you linked, for example, contains this key bit of misinformation: However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering.
No such evidence was presented in the NAMBLA case and no such material was on the NAMBLA site. You don't have to take my word for it; just check out the Internet Archive of the NAMBLA site including the 1997 version. Particularly check out this page stating: "NAMBLA does not provide encouragement, referrals or assistance for people seeking sexual contacts. NAMBLA does not engage in any activities that violate the law."
So exactly what is on the NAMBLA site that justifies holding them liable for the death of Jeffrey Curley? Where is the "stepping stone to illegal acts?" I've told you the legal standard defended by the ACLU. In fact, you can see the ACLU apply the same standard to abortion protesters in the brief I previously cited which requires that speech must be "intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action" before the speaker can be legally penalized.
Further, it's not quite accurate for you to claim:
In fact, you posted several false accusations against the ACLU, including claiming it's naive to see the ACLU as concerned with free speech, with the clear implication of your argument being that the ACLU is evil. In doing so, you've attacked the integrity and morality of the more than half million patriotic Americans who make up the ACLU's membership including me and my family. Isn't that "something very public that offended many of my countrymates" followed by "an explanatory statement to defend my chosen course of actions?"
Still, I'm sorry that you see yourself as the victim of "ad hominem attacks" here, though, honestly, I do not see where I went beyond pointing out flaws in what you wrote (feel free to point out any "personal attacks" I made that I'm missing). I'm glad you're looking for "meaningful exchanges" to expand your "knowledge and understanding of the world," but I seem to be getting some rough treatment for giving you what you claim to want. I am trying to expand your understanding by pointing out your inaccurate facts and premises. Primarily, I'm trying to show you that the ACLU is neither anti-religion nor anti-Christian. I'm trying to show you that the ACLU cares about protecting the free speech rights of all speakers, including those communicating a Christian message.
That's why I keep coming back to this question: Can you or Nedd or anybody show me a case where the ACLU was supposedly anti-religion that did not actually involve GOVERNMENT religion?
Comment by Allen Asch— 2006/06/28 @ 03:17 AM — (Reply)
This is a personal attack. But let's move on. Neither of us benefit from arguing over tangential points - let's just assume the best of each other and recognize that internet conversations show an extremely limited range of emotion and can easily be misunderstood.
You accuse me of posting defamatory remarks - I would advise you to take those comments up with the men who penned them. Not that I am issuing a disclaimer about my feelings on the matter, mind you.
You have not addressed Meyers' statements which refute completely your assertion that "the ACLU cares about protecting the free speech rights of all speakers, including those communicating a Christian message". Meyers seems to believe that the ACLU considers itself above free speech and HE states it that the organization has become beholden to special interest groups. I linked to the websites of only a few ACLU sites and it was readily apparent that certain social issues are at the top of the ACLU's agenda. Will you deny that?
Further, it is evident that we are arguing from completely different paradigms with vastly different and often exclusive vocabularies.
Your offense at the word "evil" is understandable but within Christian terminology as I explained above, wholly appropriate. You cannot argue about morally loaded words from a secular position.
If there is "evil" than there must be "good" which means there are innate attributes that preexist the opinions of Allen and Cate.
As I stated above, choosing to defend and even extend the limits of freedom in many cases is in direct opposition to CHRISTIAN VALUES. You don't have to hang a man to undermine his principles?
As for NAMBLA, we just plain aren't going to agree here. While you argue about legal allowability, I worry about moral responsibility. Will you also argue for polygamists and people who practice bestiality? Isn't that free expression? Where is the line, Allen?
As for my conclusions - if you go back to the original post, my conclusions were about the way that Stephen Carter used the term "evil" in his article in Christianity Today.
My conclusions were about the American society which prizes unfettered freedom above moral obligation. And that crosses political, ethnic, and ideological lines.
No rough treatment is intended - don't laugh - I mean that. My tongue seems much sharper in print than it really is.
You want me to show you where the ACLU took clear action against Christians and I want you to show me how defending the "rights" of pedophiles is anything but against my values. We are at an impasse.
I would love to read your thoughts about this comment I posted above:
More:The ACLU's free speech double standards
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/28 @ 03:44 PM — (Reply)
FYI,
My personal webpage has been so successful that I have turned it into a website with a customized URL at
http://www.ACLUFightsForChristians.com
Let me know what you think about my updated ACLU Christian page
Also, in case you're interested, there's a cool, funny video on the NAMBLA issue at:
Daily Show Reminds Us NAMBLA is a Joke
Thanks for leaving up my comments :-)
Comment by Allen Asch— 2006/12/04 @ 07:17 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/12/04 @ 12:08 PM — (Reply)
Well, I'm glad you welcome dissenting opinons even though I disagree with your assessment of the ACLU
By the way, I thought you also might like the 2 minute 1 second YouTube video at: Jesus Cared About Stopping War & Poverty OR Gays & Abortion?
Comment by Allen— 2006/12/10 @ 11:47 AM — (Reply)
So tell me, how is it unconstitutional to mention advertise a Christmas movie at a Christmas celebration?
Comment by Cate— 2006/12/12 @ 06:26 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2006/12/12 @ 12:25 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/12/12 @ 12:38 PM — (Reply)
I'm not a lawyer (thank heavens), and certainly not a constitutional one at that. However, allow me to present a possible argument for consideration.
The celebration of Christmas, like it or not, has most assuredly acquired a secular status in our country. Icons such as Christmas trees, Christmas lights, and of course, Santa Clause, have culturally transcended their original religious symbolism. I don't think you would argue that, would you?
The market is held on city grounds, with significant support from the city in terms of finances and organization. While Christkindlmarket is not an official branch of the City of Chicago, nonetheless, it is clearly acknowledged to share a close partnership with the city.
Anyway... the fact that the City of Chicago sponsors the holiday 'tradition' of Christkindlmarket is not, in itself, an establishment or preferential treatment of one religion over another. It is an acknowledgement of a tradition as much secular in practice as it might be religious in origin. (Though, really it's origin goes back to pagan celebration of the solstice... but that's straying off topic.)
"The Nativity Story" is a decidedly religious movie. Constitutionally, the city could not endorse this movie- I trust you would agree with that- since that would be tantamount to an endorsement of religion. While acknowledging the market is not a branch of the government, nonetheless, the close support provided by the city to the organizers has to be recognized, and taken into account.
The city is simply being responsible in offering its opinion. Perhaps overly cautious, I'll admit...
Now, for a more enjoyable side topic!
Please pull out your Bibles and turn to Jeremiah 10:2-4. Now, take a look over at that blue spruce, all decorated in tinsel. Do you think the Lord would prefer that you use an artificial tree next year??
Comment by Michael— 2006/12/13 @ 09:57 AM — (Reply)
You on the other hand can choose to mock the Bible (free speech) or post a nativity scene on your blog (free speech) or go to The Sound of Music or Debbie Does Dallas.
No one, you included, should be able to decide what the government promotes based on content.
Comment by Ernie Els— 2006/12/13 @ 03:18 PM — (Reply)
So, I'm not sure I'm following you completely, Mr.Els. Are you saying that the city ought not to commented on any of the sponsors for the event? Or should the organizers not have had any sponsors at all?
As for your last statement: "Noone, you included, should be able to decide what the government promotes based on content". First, I wasn't saying that I had a strong opinion myself on this Christkindlmarket thing- It's in Chicago, and I don't really much care. I was just trying to formulate a justification that might be used.
Second, of COURSE it's imperative to examine what the government promotes based on content. The Establishment Clause mandates that we examine closely, whether or not a government action could be construed as establishing a state religion, de facto if not de jure. There are times when it gets tedious (the whole creche debate has bounced back and forth too many times), and I agree that it's probably gone too far to the side of caution.
Comment by Michael— 2006/12/14 @ 01:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/12/13 @ 03:03 PM — (Reply)
As for why non-Christians might celebrate, that answer is obvious, and goes to why Christmas is celebrated in December at all. Winter sucks! Why not celebrate days getting longer?
Comment by Michael— 2006/12/14 @ 01:54 PM — (Reply)
I'd agree to that. Most people recognize the date as representational rather than historically accurate, don't they?
I mean, sheep grazing in the dead of night midwinter?
Comment by Cate— 2006/12/14 @ 02:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/12/13 @ 03:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2006/12/14 @ 02:01 PM — (Reply)
Michael wrote: "many more strident sects have banned Christmas outright"
In fact, if you visit my site, ACLU Fights for Christians, you'll find one of the cases I mention is this one: ACLU Defends Church's Right to Run Anti-Santa Ads in Boston Subways
And, by the way, another of the cases I have listed made the news this week. See: Another Victory for Religious Speech Rights
Comment by Allen— 2006/12/14 @ 10:25 PM — (Reply)
Thought you might like the 2 minute 31 second video at:
WHAT WAR ON CHRISTMAS? ACLU fights for Christmas Tree!
Merry Christmas, Cate, and anyone else who might be reading :-)
Comment by Allen— 2006/12/23 @ 08:46 AM — (Reply)