The ACLU Strikes Back
Here is my interview with Nevada ACLU general counsel Allen Lichtenstein about the Brittany McComb case.A: Not at all. Our position is the one that the law takes and I think it is the correct one. When you are talking about a specific set of circumstances like a graduation ceremony where you have a captive audience and you have a speech given with school approval that is very different than an individual acting on her own. That same speech Brittany McComb gave, if it were in a different context, we would support her right to say that. But she was speaking officially and that is the difference.
Q: The Rutherford Institute also said that this is an untested area of law on the Supreme Court level. Do you consider this touching on unsettled law?
A: The Ninth Circuit, which we are in, has on two separate occasions, once in 2000 and again in 2003, addressed this exact issue. In both cases they said the school district has the right to control the content of the speeches in this very specific context.
Q: So when Rutherford says it has not been tested on the Supreme Court level...
A: That is correct. This specific issue has not been decided at the Supreme Court level. But that is aiming to get the Ninth Circuit precedent overturned.
Q: Yes, that is what they are trying to do, I think.
A: They certainly have the right to do that. But it is not untested. It is clear from the Ninth Circuit. What they are trying to do is change the Ninth Circuit law.
Q: Do you think they will succeed?
A: I can't read tea leaves. But I think the Ninth Circuit did get it right. We are not talking about her speaking on her own. We are talking about a school assembly and a captive audience and I think that makes all the difference in the world.
Q: Well, the school asked her to write on what is important to her. How else could she honestly answer that question being such a religious person?
A: The Ninth Circuit precedent did not say that all reference to God have to be kept from a speech. What the Ninth Circuit did say is that proselytizing is inappropriate in this context.
(Photo: KM Cannon / AP)
This may seem unrelated, but I will inject it anyway. As a product of California's public school system I have always been taught the merits of a diverse society. And I truly believe there are many merits to speak of. However, sometimes it seems like ours has gone from diverse to divided. For all of the the 'Founding Fathers' talk I hear I do remember one thing. They knew the power of compromise. If they didn't there would be no USA. And if we don't get it quick we may be in real trouble for the future. From where I see it the greatest threat to American security and dominance are in the hearts and minds us the Americans.
Posted by: TR | July 24, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Anger can cloud judgment.
While Thomas Jefferson and many founders did have slaves, the founders were also the first group of rich, white men anywhere who put in the founding documents, “… all men are created equal.” Their words help lead Americans to fight a civil war to free American slaves.
From Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King, most leaders who fought against the horrors of slavery and its prejudices were Christians.
While America is clearly not perfect, America has created more freedom and prosperity than anywhere on earth. Why? One reason is that, our founders understood where our liberty comes from: “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
Here are some terrific world leaders who believed there is no God and that they were, in fact, God.
JOSEPH STALIN ….. 60 MILLION MURDERED
“One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”
ADOPH HITLER…… 60 MILLION MURDERED
MAO SE TUNG…….. 50 MILLION MURDERED
(Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956, 1973-76 ISBN: 0813332893)
These are just the top 3 murderers. Atheism in the last century alone caused more deaths than all the Christians in the history of the world. Remove the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country and you are destined to repeat history.
Roger
Posted by: Roger | July 24, 2006 at 10:58 AM
"ADOPH HITLER…… 60 MILLION MURDERED"
AdoLph was a Catholic until the day he died. And don't forget the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, American Slave trade, and the list goes on. Do you REALLY want to compare atrocities?
Posted by: Jesse F. | July 24, 2006 at 11:44 AM
"JOSEPH STALIN ….. 60 MILLION MURDERED
“One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic”
ADOPH HITLER…… 60 MILLION MURDERED
MAO SE TUNG…….. 50 MILLION MURDERED"
Oh and almost completely forgot to mention that your numbers are WAY off. Stalin murdered 20 to 30 million and more recent accounts have that number at more like 10 to 20. Why even bother trying to make a point when you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Posted by: Jesse F. | July 24, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Roger:
I am a Buddhist. I have also read the Bible cover to cover, to compare Christianity to Buddhism. Hopefully, you would come to grips with the following FACTS:
(1) It is true the forefathers of the USA fought against slavery. However, their logic could NOT have been based on Biblical principles. In the Old Testament, slavery was permitted by GOD. The Torah does discuss how slaves should or should not be treated. However, slavery was the way of Old Testament, permitted by GOD. The New Testament also does not teach ANYWHERE that slavery is wrong or to be abolished. The New Testament merely has references on how slaves and their master(s) should behave towards each other. NO ONE knowledgeable of the Bible would use the Bible to argue against slavery. Whatever prompted the forefathers of the USA to abolish slavery, it could NOT have been the Biblical principles.
(2) True, atheists have massacred innocent people. However, this does not mean atheism condones the action! The Crusades were conducted by Christians. The acts also massacred innocent people. However, no one knowledgeable of the New Testament would agree with the Crusades since the New Testament clearly forbids such violence. However, in the Old Testament, this is not so. The Old Testament not only authorizes but only encourages all believers of GOD to eliminate all those who speak against GOD. Buddhism, as a religion, does not focus on “GOD”. Nonetheless, Buddhism forbids violence. Buddhism advocates the separation of church and state, and advocates the freedom of all people to practice their own religions.
(3) The first of the Ten Commandments FORBIDS the worship of other religions. The penalty (in the Old Testament) is death. In the New Testament, it is banishment from the church community. Jesus, the founder of Christianity, proclaims “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father (GOD) but through Me”. Much, much more can be quoted. Can you envision what would happen to the USA if the Christians were in command?
Posted by: Panya Manoon | July 24, 2006 at 12:53 PM
To Roger:
Roger, like a subsequent poster commented to your second post, embracing a Christian or even non-Christian belief and/or practice just because the Founding Fathers did it doesn't necessarily mean it is appropriate. The nation was more homogeneous then. Should the upper middle class simply "own" an undocumented immigrant simply because it was acceptable to "own" a slave in pre-Reconstruction America?
Whether you have relevant case law to back your position is irrelevant. The Constitution holds firm and should be the true "Bible" for any American. It is the foundation of civil society.
As a Catholic I believe in Holy Scripture - but because it is the foundation of my moral and spiritual belief - it is private to me. Where Brittany erred is that she used her speech as a tool for evangelization - literally selling Christianity as if it was a commodity that SHE believed should be enjoyed by all. How self-centered and egotistical. Brittany, you had it coming.
Posted by: Philip | July 24, 2006 at 01:09 PM
Hmmm...There sure is a lot of under-educated talk regarding the bible and the constitution. I am a christian and I will not pretend to know everything about anything.
No one here was alive when the framers of the constitution worre the drafts and what was truly meant by each article and amendment. We can only assume or guess what was meant by reading journals and papers written by the members of the constitutional convention.
As for quoting the bible, one must be very careful in doing so. Whether christian or not, it is very easy to take it out of context or misinterpret it, as many have done. I won't argue or try to defend God, because that is not my place. It is however to desciple to the non-believers in the christian faith as the bible teaches and as I am charged and ordained by the "great commission" to "go out into the world and make disciples of all the nations."
Brittney was just doing that. Following Jesus' command to go and tell the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As for worship, Jesus did not say to keep it quiet and in the closet. He was addressing the priests of that time who would fast from eating and dress up in meeger clothing and dirty up there faces so that everyone would see that they are suffering in worship of fasting for God. Jesus said this is wrong. He said do not show off as they were. Brittney was not showing off.
I do also have a problem with all this thin skinned attitude towards religion. I mean all religions. Yes the ACLU is at fault as much as everyone else who isn't mature enough to be able to sit down and talk to their family regarding what was said from a religious point of view or even a non-religious point of view. You have the power to sit down with your kids and talk about a show they saw and about what's real and what's not. Yet you can't do that when someone offends what your belief is or is not.
I have been offended by both christians and non-christians alike. But, I have never been treated as unfairly by any organized religion (any faith)as I have by non-religious people. If you read the rest of this blog, who is doing most of the attacking and who is doing most of the defending?
Well, that's what I have to say for now. I am not judging anyone, but I think we should do as Jesus said we need to "take the plank out of our own eye, before removing the speck out of someone elses eye".
Posted by: Ruben in Vegas | July 28, 2006 at 01:52 PM
The ACLU finds cover in the case law of the 9th Circuit, but both are in error.
I would like to ask why the ACLU invokes the “school sponsored event” defense for graduations and football games, but does not invoke it for student newspapers and magazines. Does not the school bear the cost and sponsorship in all of these cases?
I would like to ask why the school could not assert a distinction between its own policies and the thoughts and beliefs of an individual who attended the school using the standard disclaimer ("The opinions expressed by today's speakers do not necessarily reflect the policies of the school district").
I would like to ask the ACLU why it thinks the public is so delicate that it cannot recognize that distinction on its own but needs a court rulings.
I would like to ask why the ACLU defended the right of neo-nazis to march in Skokie, IL (proselytizing for white supremacy) saying that the remedy for unpopular speech was more speech, but does not defend a student who was selected by secular criteria (highest GPA) by saying that the remedy for unpopular speech is more speech?
I would like to ask the school why, on the day it is sending all of its students into the world, it must, in effect, decide for those students what constitutes acceptable speech? Can't you trust them to act like the adults you helped them become?
I would like to ask why “proselytizing” becomes unprotected speech, when it causes no harm?
Finally, I would like to ask those who do not want to be “offended” during a graduation ceremony why they think that their desire should be elevated to a right, trumping even the First Amendment?
-- Christopher Curzon
Posted by: Christopher Curzon | July 28, 2006 at 08:57 PM
Roger, you've got two things wrong. First, I will answer your question "If the Constitution is to be reinterpreted in every generation then why bother having a written Constitution at all?" with another question: Does Brown v. Board of Education mean anything at all to you? How about how black men couldn't vote in the 18th century even though those oh-so-great founding fathers wrote that "all men are created equal" ? And that women can today even though it wasn't written then?
Thomas Jefferson was a theist, not a good little gung-ho Christian like yourself. So don't grasp onto your little straws of "original intent."
Christopher Curzon: the clear difference between a school speech and a newspaper is that school newspapers generally have opposing arguments for a provocative issue. Nor does that matter: your analogy doesn't hold water - no public school newspaper in the country would let Brittany publish what she had said and especially was going to say in her speech (see http://tinyurl.com/q9ujy provided earlier by Chris).
And finally, my favorite, Erik. Thank you for quoting the First Amendment. Now let me quote the Second: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I'm sure you also believe that Brittany had the right to walk up onto the stage with a gun, or a loaded M16 while giving her speech. Right Erik? Why not?
Here's why not: because as clearly as the Second Amendment gives Brittany the right to carry a gun onto the stage, the context clearly doesn't call for it. And because there are people in society who just might try it, we have laws against it.
Posted by: Someone else | July 29, 2006 at 09:39 PM
Someone Else:
That’s quite a broad statement that you make. “No public school would let…” Please tell me the legal basis for that claim. (Case law?) If the message by a student is suppressed because it is religious in nature that in itself should fail the three part Lemon test which requires the government neither to advance NOR TO SUPPRESS religious interests, nor to be excessively entangled. Schools can easily avoid the entanglement issue by clearly disclaiming “the opinions expressed here are solely those of the speaker …”
As for the opposing arguments rationale, why is this even germane? Free speech (emphasis on FREE) cannot be made dependent on the existence of someone else to propose a counter opinion. If before speaking I have to wait for someone else to appear in opposition, then my speech is hindered and therefore less free. Whoever said balance was a requirement of the First Amendment?
Indeed, if a valedictorian has been selected by neutral, secular criteria (to use Justice Souter's concept) I cannot see how the school can reasonably step in without treading on the student's speech rights. What the school is really saying is "You're free to speak AFTER you leave here, but not yet."
Don't you think that's a funny way to reward academic excellence??
Posted by: Christopher Curzon | July 31, 2006 at 10:19 PM