A good America

[HelenaCat95]

This graduation speech which was also full of opinion and belief was cut short by the authorites.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 14416.html

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

This graduation speech which was also full of opinion and belief was cut short by the authorites.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 14416.html

So it's fine for the ACLU to get involved and say that "cutting it short" was the right call?

I wonder what the ACLU would say if the student was Muslim and she referenced Allah 9 times and/or used other relevant terms.

I'm not even a religious type but this seems to be one hell of a double standard.

[SonomaCat]

This graduation speech which was also full of opinion and belief was cut short by the authorites.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 14416.html

So it's fine for the ACLU to get involved and say that "cutting it short" was the right call?

I wonder what the ACLU would say if the student was Muslim and she referenced Allah 9 times and/or used other relevant terms.

I'm not even a religious type but this seems to be one hell of a double standard.

It would make a much more compelling argument if you actually found an example of a situation in which the speaker attempting to proselytize was a Muslim student and the ACLU took a different position as a result. I doubt you will find one.

Absent that, all you have is a straw man argument, and no evidence whatsoever of a double standard.

I personally think this is splitting hairs, and I think the school should be off the hook for a student going on a proselytizing binge. It shouldn't be incumbent upon them to stop a person in that situation -- they should merely only let everyone know that it is against school policy. I definitely agree with the idea that the school should not be actively endorsing any religion, but if someone wants to use their valedictorian speech to preach to the crowd ... I guess I would say let'em do it.

And if I was in the crowd, I would then just be pissed at the speaker for using the speech for a purpose other than what I attended the ceremony to hear (similar to those people who are upset when a speaker goes on and on about politics during a commencement speech).

[Ponycat]

Double standard or not shouldn't the ACLU be defending the girls rights.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

This graduation speech which was also full of opinion and belief was cut short by the authorites.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 14416.html

So it's fine for the ACLU to get involved and say that "cutting it short" was the right call?

I wonder what the ACLU would say if the student was Muslim and she referenced Allah 9 times and/or used other relevant terms.

I'm not even a religious type but this seems to be one hell of a double standard.

It would make a much more compelling argument if you actually found an example of the ACLU treating a situation in which the speaker was a Muslim student differently.

Absent that, all you have is a straw man argument, and no evidence whatsoever of a double standard.

Yes, of course, your patented term comes to use again. Everything is a straw man argument to you isn't it?

I guess you missed my point why the ACLU would be in full support of this.

This young lady had just as much right to speak her mind as much as the person who did the speech that started this thread.

Of course, you might cite that she brought a "holy" nature to it while the other speaker didn't.

And, finally, you won't find a documented case if there was a Muslim involved because you know damn well they wouldn't get involved unless it was to support her right to give the speech.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

This graduation speech which was also full of opinion and belief was cut short by the authorites.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 14416.html

So it's fine for the ACLU to get involved and say that "cutting it short" was the right call?

I wonder what the ACLU would say if the student was Muslim and she referenced Allah 9 times and/or used other relevant terms.

I'm not even a religious type but this seems to be one hell of a double standard.

It would make a much more compelling argument if you actually found an example of a situation in which the speaker attempting to proselytize was a Muslim student and the ACLU took a different position as a result. I doubt you will find one.

Absent that, all you have is a straw man argument, and no evidence whatsoever of a double standard.

I personally think this is splitting hairs, and I think the school should be off the hook for a student going on a proselytizing binge. It shouldn't be incumbent upon them to stop a person in that situation -- they should merely only let everyone know that it is against school policy. I definitely agree with the idea that the school should not be actively endorsing any religion, but if someone wants to use their valedictorian speech to preach to the crowd ... I guess I would say let'em do it.

And if I was in the crowd, I would then just be pissed at the speaker for using the speech for a purpose other than what I attended the ceremony to hear (similar to those people who are upset when a speaker goes on and on about politics during a commencement speech).

I totally agree with the rest of your post that wasn't there the first time I quoted you.

[SonomaCat]

The reason I use "straw man argument" so much is because they are used so damn much on message boards. It's the bread and butter of seemingly every argument.

Gee, I bet Clinton wouldn't have ....

Gee, I wonder what Hillary would say if ...

Gee, I bet the ACLU wouldn't have ....

So yes, that part of your argument was a straw man argument as you theorized that a Muslim student would have been treated differently. If you have no evidence to support this assertion, you are, by definition, making a straw man argument.

In fact, the last sentence of your post reinforces the very same straw man argument. So until you find an example of a Muslim in a similar situation, and the ACLU opining one way or another, just know that you are simply making straw man arguments.

And there is a difference between purely political speech and religious speech in the context of a public school due to the "establishment of religion" clause. They do fall into different buckets, and I agree with there is then a conflict between freedom of speech and the separation of church and state arguments.

Clearly, the ACLU in this case holds the separation of church and state as the more pressing of the two arguments, while others would say the freedom of speech wins out. I fall into the latter camp, quite honestly.

So if you stuck to that argument, I would likely have agreed with you. But when you used the Muslim straw man argument, as it employed that dreaded form of rhetoric that bugs me so much, I had to call you on it.

[SonomaCat]

Double standard or not shouldn't the ACLU be defending the girls rights.

I would guess they would argue that the rights of everyone else in the building outweigh her rights. Like I mentioned, this isn't a fight I would personally get into. If she wants to preach, I say let her preach ... but the program shouldn't contain a segment for a school-endorsed sermon of any religion.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

The reason I use "straw man argument" so much is because they are used so damn much on message boards. It's the bread and butter of seemingly every argument.

Gee, I bet Clinton wouldn't have ....

Gee, I wonder what Hillary would say if ...

Gee, I bet the ACLU wouldn't have ....

So yes, that part of your argument was a straw man argument as you theorized that a Muslim student would have been treated differently. If you have no evidence to support this assertion, you are, by definition, making a straw man argument.

In fact, the last sentence of your post reinforces the very same straw man argument. So until you find an example of a Muslim in a similar situation, and the ACLU opining one way or another, just know that you are simply making straw man arguments.

And there is a difference between purely political speech and religious speech in the context of a public school due to the "establishment of religion" clause. They do fall into different buckets, and I agree with there is then a conflict between freedom of speech and the separation of church and state arguments.

Clearly, the ACLU in this case holds the separation of church and state as the more pressing of the two arguments, while others would say the freedom of speech wins out. I fall into the latter camp, quite honestly.

So if you stuck to that argument, I would likely have agreed with you. But when you used the Muslim straw man argument, as it employed that dreaded form of rhetoric that bugs me so much, I had to call you on it.

http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp?Pag ... theType=NB

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1638063/posts

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1637474/posts

Unrelated to the topic at hand, but this seems to be interesting in that even the higher-ups are content w/picking and choosing what is said or suggested within their own group.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-chat/1636689/posts

Yes, of course, the separation of church and state. Again, consistent w/their convenient selection of what to pursue and what not to pursue, how convenient they go after soldiers and their "right" to pray, right?


http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1635818/posts

Again, more of the same.

Brad, you're absolutely right!! My argument is strictly that of a straw man (pat yourself on the back).

Basically by challenging me to come up with some sort of proof in the form of a case where there was a Muslim involved, I couldn't pull up anything. I found a few small snips of information where the ACLU went after Christians in this setting and I threw in the Marines praying just because. I also threw in the part where even the ACLU wants to limit any criticism or problems from within. How ACLU-like wouldn't you say?

Basically, you win this argument and you've proven my argument is that of a straw man. To put it simply, it's a straw man argument because the ACLU hasn't (and, in my opinion probably won't ever) pursue such a "hypothetical" case as I so described.

However, if Arshiya Saiyed ever has a complaint about another prayer or, specifically, something Christian-based being recited in her educational environment, I bet they'd be there to fully support her again.

I realize that at this point, it's impossible to provide any proof of the situation I described so feel free to focus on that aspect. I just don't see how one could deny that there is at least a hint of a double standard here.

[SonomaCat]

Each of your links (except for the internal dissent one) has the ACLU being very, very consistent. In each case, they are against government-sponsored religion ... specificially, prayer.

I'm not seeing the double standard. They actually seem to be incredibly consistent in this regard in each instance.

Or are you saying that because it was a Muslim that complained about the school prayer, that this somehow means the ACLU is pro-Muslim and anti-Christian?

It seems to be that they are simply anti-government sanctioned prayer in any taxpayer-funded venue, without regard for whether the religion in question is Christianity or not.

Again, if you could find any instances where they come out with an opinion that condradicts this assertion, I'd be glad to read it. But I simply don't think there's anything to it.

You can accuse the ACLU of many things, but they do seem to be incredibly consistent in the positions they take ... which makes them a PR nightmare in many cases (as they don't give themselves the luxury of taking the popular positions in most situations).

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

Each of your links (except for the internal dissent one) has the ACLU being very, very consistent. In each case, they are against government-sponsored religion ... specificially, prayer.

I'm not seeing the double standard. They actually seem to be incredibly consistent in this regard in each instance.

Or are you saying that because it was a Muslim that complained about the school prayer, that this somehow means the ACLU is pro-Muslim and anti-Christian?

It seems to be that they are simply anti-government sanctioned prayer in any taxpayer-funded venue, without regard for whether the religion in question is Christianity or not.

Again, if you could find any instances where they come out with an opinion that condradicts this assertion, I'd be glad to read it. But I simply don't think there's anything to it.

You can accuse the ACLU of many things, but they do seem to be incredibly consistent in the positions they take ... which makes them a PR nightmare in many cases (as they don't give themselves the luxury of taking the popular positions in most situations).

Where have I questioned their consistency? The ACLU has been around since 1920 and they put themselves on the map with a Boston case that involved the censoring or removal of books that were described as being a little too much. Again, and consistent with what you said, a decision that wasn't of the popular opinion back then.

I do have this question. Can you provide a link or a case where the "culprit" has NOT been someone with a Christian background?

I don't know if you can classify them as such (anti-Christian) but don't you find it in the least bit peculiar that when there is a religious aspect to their cases, it tends to be against those who favor Christianity? I realize that it's the predominant religious following in this country, but it's obviously not the only one.

Here's another straw man argument (though you probably have to admit that those who might be involved do this everyday), but do you know of any cases where someone (a student in this case) has made a stir about a fellow student of a certain religion praying towards a certain city 5 times a day? Again, I couldn't find anything. Sorry, I'm using the Muslim slant here because this is mainly all I've found.

When I was on campus at the UW, it wasn't a rarity to see people on their mats praying to Mecca (on campus property). The UW is a public, tax-payer funded institution but I didn't see anyone raising any hoopla over this.

You brought up the issue of the group being pro-Muslim or anti-Christian. As I said before, I don't know if I'd call them that. When one looks at what they have defended or challenged over the years, I can't help but look and be in support of some of their work.

You bring up consistency and there's a lot of truth in that. I just find it really interesting that they are starting to mount a pretty impressive record with their cases that involve not only prayer/worship, but primarily that of a Christian aspect. I don't agree with the anti-Christian label, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that there is a growing amount of sentiment that would describe them as such.

[SonomaCat]

Let's back up and speak to a couple points that we seem to be talking past each other on.

1. The separation of church and state, even as promoted by the ACLU, does not preclude anyone from praying on public property. It merely precludes the government agency/institution from promoting religion (but accomodating private religion is okay, as long as it doesn't force it on others). Therefore, Muslims could have their prayer mats out and bowing the Mecca seven times a day all they want. Likewise, Christians can get together and privately pray to Jesus as many times as they want on public property. The ACLU only cares when the institution puts policies in place that promote or discourage prayer, such as a public prayer during a graduation ceremony.

2. In this country, a vast majority of the people are Christians, and nearly every single government jurisdiction is dominated by Christians. Christians also happen to be the only religious group in this country that feels as though they have the right to force their religion on others (Jews don't tend to be prosylitizers, and Muslims are a vast minority so really don't feel too confident in that area). So if you are looking for cases of government institutions in this country pushing religion on people, there's about a 99.9% chance it is going to be a Christian doing it. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the ACLU would be involved in cases virtually or literally exclusively relating to Christians ignoring the tenets of the separation of church and state.

If the ACLU was active in Saudi Arabia, then they'd have their hands full with cases involving Muslims. Of course, theocracies don't have the laws that we have that the ACLU defends.

So when you said "double standard," I assumed that you are suggesting that the ACLU has been inconsistent. Apparently, that's not what you were getting at.

But when you say that all of the cases of the ACLU fighting to maintain the wall between church and state have involved Christians ... I can only agree and say, "Yes, of course." When's the last time you have heard a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist trying to use a government institution to promote their religion? The only place I have heard Jewish prayers is in Temple, and the only place I have heard Muslim prayers is walking by the prayer rooms at the companies I have worked at. These religious groups don't have the power or, frankly, the arrogance (the belief that the separation of church and state does not apply to them) to try to push their religious beliefs through our government institutions.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

Let's back up and speak to a couple points that we seem to be talking past each other on.

1. The separation of church and state, even as promoted by the ACLU, does not preclude anyone from praying on public property. It merely precludes the government agency/institution from promoting religion (but accomodating private religion is okay, as long as it doesn't force it on others). Therefore, Muslims could have their prayer mats out and bowing the Mecca seven times a day all they want. Likewise, Christians can get together and privately pray to Jesus as many times as they want on public property. The ACLU only cares when the institution puts policies in place that promote or discourage prayer, such as a public prayer during a graduation ceremony.

2. In this country, a vast majority of the people are Christians, and nearly every single government jurisdiction is dominated by Christians. Christians also happen to be the only religious group in this country that feels as though they have the right to force their religion on others (Jews don't tend to be prosylitizers, and Muslims are a vast minority so really don't feel too confident in that area). So if you are looking for cases of government institutions in this country pushing religion on people, there's about a 99.9% chance it is going to be a Christian doing it. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the ACLU would be involved in cases virtually or literally exclusively relating to Christians ignoring the tenets of the separation of church and state.

If the ACLU was active in Saudi Arabia, then they'd have their hands full with cases involving Muslims. Of course, theocracies don't have the laws that we have that the ACLU defends.

So when you said "double standard," I assumed that you are suggesting that the ACLU has been inconsistent. Apparently, that's not what you were getting at.

But when you say that all of the cases of the ACLU fighting to maintain the wall between church and state have involved Christians ... I can only agree and say, "Yes, of course." When's the last time you have heard a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist trying to use a government institution to promote their religion? The only place I have heard Jewish prayers is in Temple, and the only place I have heard Muslim prayers is walking by the prayer rooms at the companies I have worked at. These religious groups don't have the power or, frankly, the arrogance (the belief that the separation of church and state does not apply to them) to try to push their religious beliefs through our government institutions.

Your 1st point makes sense and I didn't realize the extent of what public aspect religion can be practiced in.

So Jews don't tend to be proselytizers and Muslims aren't arrogant/confident enough to push their religion on others. I'm not one to deal in absolutes so despite your 99.9% Christian statement as well as the first point I made in this paragraph, it still seems hard to believe that any other religious group has never done anything to get the ACLU involved. Again, it goes back to my statement where the ACLU is selective in what they pick and choose (see (again) as an example, their internal situation) as their case. To me, that selectivity in this case is a double standard and it stems from my belief that though Christianity will usually be involved by virtue of the sheer numbers, it's almost ridiculous to believe that they will be the only ones involved in a case (a defendant, that is). Isn't it the least bit odd that they are seldom ever those who file a complaint with the ACLU? You see, I can't find an example of what you requested earlier inasmuch as I highly doubt you will find a case where the defendants are anything but Christians.


This seems to be mainly the only area I personally find a double standard with the ACLU.

Now I'm sure that you might bring up how you think I missed your point on the separation of church and state. I didn't miss the point. It just seems to me that in recent years, the ACLU has certainly increased it's attention towards this area. In some cases, I feel they've lost track of their true mission and some of their members seem to be on some sort of quest to target groups who have beliefs that don't align with their own. However, when the separation of church and state is invoked, they will always have that principle to justify everything.

[SonomaCat]

I don't doubt that certain members do have strong personal feeling that come into play, just like any group. And the church/state issue is certainly one that the ACLU is focused on lately (although it also attracts more media attention than most, particularly in the conservative press that likes to paint them as anti-Christian).

However, getting back to the point you made about the trends, I simply believe that there are few government jurisdictions in this country where a religious group other than Christians would ever have the power to even try to promote their religion via the government.

And in those few places where there is a Muslim or Jewish majority, those groups are probably acutely aware of why the church/state wall exists as they have been on the wrong side of it their whole lives. As such, they wouldn't likely have the "arrogrance" (I will explain my use of that later) to find it appropriate to try to use the local government to promote their religion.

Arrogance: There are a shockingly large number of Christians in this country that sincerely believe that this is a Christian nation, and that anybody who isn't Christian is simply wrong (or they just assume everybody is a Christian at some level). This is the kind of attitude that is necessary to assume that the church/state separation doesn't apply to them and naivete to assume that everybody around them believes the exact same things they do.

I just don't think you'd see that same sort of sense of entitlement in the minority religious groups in this country, which would further go to explain why there are so few cases of chuch/state separation issues that involve any religion other than Christianity.

But if there was a case where a public school was reading the Torah or Koran during the graduation ceremony, and if the ACLU did NOT opine against it, I would be among the first to criticize the ACLU. However, I am fairly certain they would jump at the chance to take a complain from a Christian to stop it ... if for no other reason than to quash assertions from Christian groups that allege the the ACLU is anti-Christian.

[lifeloyalsigmsu]

I don't doubt that certain members do have strong personal feeling that come into play, just like any group. And the church/state issue is certainly one that the ACLU is focused on lately (although it also attracts more media attention than most, particularly in the conservative press that likes to paint them as anti-Christian).

The conservative press does have a knack for painting them as such. I've also noticed that they neglect to mention the cases they take that are very worthwhile to our country as a whole. You're absolutely right about how every group has their members that have personal feelings that sometimes override things.

However, getting back to the point you made about the trends, I simply believe that there are few government jurisdictions in this country where a religious group other than Christians would ever have the power to even try to promote their religion via the government.

And in those few places where there is a Muslim or Jewish majority, those groups are probably acutely aware of why the church/state wall exists as they have been on the wrong side of it their whole lives. As such, they wouldn't likely have the "arrogrance" (I will explain my use of that later) to find it appropriate to try to use the local government to promote their religion.

Yes, you're absolutely right. The arrogance you described most likely comes with that "strength in numbers". I don't think it would be any different if it were another religion who held that claim.

Arrogance: There are a shockingly large number of Christians in this country that sincerely believe that this is a Christian nation, and that anybody who isn't Christian is simply wrong (or they just assume everybody is a Christian at some level). This is the kind of attitude that is necessary to assume that the church/state separation doesn't apply to them and naivete to assume that everybody around them believes the exact same things they do.

I work in a hospital that has a religious affiliation. I see what you just posted on a daily basis.

I just don't think you'd see that same sort of sense of entitlement in the minority religious groups in this country, which would further go to explain why there are so few cases of chuch/state separation issues that involve any religion other than Christianity.

You won't see it in the minority religious groups. However, is it safe to say that most religions hold that centric attitude that their way is the right way? If Christianity is someday "usurped" in its role as the having the greatest numbers, I have no reason to believe that the new group would act any different.

But if there was a case where a public school was reading the Torah or Koran during the graduation ceremony, and if the ACLU did NOT opine against it, I would be among the first to criticize the ACLU. However, I am fairly certain they would jump at the chance to take a complain from a Christian to stop it ... if for no other reason than to quash assertions from Christian groups that allege the the ACLU is anti-Christian.

Maybe an absolute is fitting in this case, but I don't ever see that happening in my lifetime (reading the Torah or the Koran at a commencement speech). If it did happen, I would be very interested in how the ACLU would be involved.

Your points make sense and they're well thought out.

[DCC2MSU]

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorsh ... 60217.html

This seems like somewhat of a case where they didn't side with muslim ideals.

[couloir41]

i think it was pony but it's buried so far back in this very interesting thread all i'm going to say is:

ok i'll ride a short horse...but if i get a chance i'm going to light your flag...just because i can...

[SonomaCat]

lifeloyalsigmsu: At the expense of somebody accusing us of having a love fest in our agreement, I do completely agree with your points that if any other religion was the supermajority in this country that Christianity currently is, we'd see the exact same examples we had discussed from them. In my opinion, it's almost purely a matter of demographics as opposed to ideology.

[SonomaCat]

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/censorsh ... 60217.html

This seems like somewhat of a case where they didn't side with muslim ideals.

Good catch. I definitely agree with the ACLU on this one.