Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The title of the OP uses the word "defend." From what i've read in the article, it doesn't sound like the ACLU is actually "defending" the teacher, unless we're using the watered down version of the word "defend" by issuing a statement in his defense.
It seems that everyone on this thread in an uproar over the ACLU defending Christians, when this doesn't look like a case of that at all. Anyone can issue a statement in defense. But what does it actually do?
I am the OP, and yes, the ACLU is DEFENDING this guy. I never claimed that Jerry Buell had retained the ACLU as his legal counsel in any legal or court proceedings (although I'm sure they offered). You're putting words in my mouth and attributing conclusions to me that I never made.
I simply stated they're defending him and his position - and I quoted part of the statement they released to that effect. The ACLU is publicly defending this man. And if it comes to a trail, I'm sure they will submit an amicus brief in his defense. It's not a watered down version of the word "defend" - it's a proper use of the word defend.
I don't believe there is a court case yet. The school district is only performing an investigation. I think that the ACLU position is, and perhaps the position of others, that if the district fires or otherwise punishes the teacher then the teacher probably would have good case against the school/district.
I am the OP, and yes, the ACLU is DEFENDING this guy. I never claimed that Jerry Buell had retained the ACLU as his legal counsel in any legal or court proceedings (although I'm sure they offered). You're putting words in my mouth and attributing conclusions to me that I never made.
I simply stated they're defending him and his position - and I quoted part of the statement they released to that effect. The ACLU is publicly defending this man. And if it comes to a trail, I'm sure they will submit an amicus brief in his defense. It's not a watered down version of the word "defend" - it's a proper use of the word defend.
Settle down, i'm just offering a differing viewpoint base on how I interpreted the article. I'm not accusing you of anything nefarious.
"Lake County School District Superintendent Susan Moxley reinstated Mount Dora High School social studies teacher Jerry Buell after his controversial anti-gay postings on Facebook."
"Sources close to the investigation told WFTV that the school board chose the easy way out. They say the board thought Buell had violated the rules, but didn't want to deal with a costly legal battle or backlash from the KKK, which had threatened to protest in front of the district headquarters."
Settle down, i'm just offering a differing viewpoint base on how I interpreted the article. I'm not accusing you of anything nefarious.
What do I have to settle down from? I was pointed out that you're putting words in my mouth and attributing claims and conclusions to me that I did not make.
I was just pointing out that they defend EVEYBODY whose first or fourth amendment rights are being violated (they're primarily a 1st and 4th amendment advocacy group). It's doesn't matter if the person or group is liberal, conservative, mean, nice, Christian, Muslim, atheist, gay, straight, black, white, etc. The ACLU defends freedom and the Constitution - not particular interests.
They've defended the Westboro Baptist Chruch, the KKK, neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, Jerry Falwell, John Scopes (the creationism-evolution case in 1925), gay-rights groups, Churches denied advertising space in the Boston subway, etc, etc, etc. And if some governmental agency tried to deny me or you our 1st or 4th amendment rights, they'd defend us.
I understand that. By saying the defense of the Westboro Baptist Church by the ACLU "rubs me the wrong way", I was obliquely expressing my sympathy for all the grieving families who have been hurt by their actions. I could not, in good conscience, lend any voice to defending them, and, along with millions of other people I would like to see them disappear from the face of the earth.
Because that is an Establishment clause issue, not a Free Exercise one.
You persist in your willful ignorance regarding the difference between this kind of case and the ones I cited above.
What is it going to take to get you to understand constitutional law?
Ditto.
Ditto ditto. The ACLU upholds BOTH religion clauses. When it is Free Exercise under threat, they will always side with the religion. When it is Establishment under threat, they will always side against the religion.
What part of this do you just not get?
Of course it is murky. It is in fact both murky and extremely complicated. That's why we have lawsuits to sort this stuff out. We have an organic, self-correcting legal system, and this is part of the process of sorting this complicated stuff out.
Hence the need for guidance from the courts, which can only be obtained via a lawsuit that results in a court opinion. The courts cannot just sua sponte go around expressing opinions. That really would be legislating and is not permitted in our system of government. The courts only have power when a controversy is propertly presented to him.
I've already cited an example of the ACLU going after a Muslim school where they believed the school was violating the Establishment clause.
Now before you go down the road of "but but it seems the ACLU goes after Christians more often", you're right, but for the wrong reasons. The reasons for that are simple demographics. More Christians = more incidents of Establishment violations.
A school system spends money on one religion and it doesn't run afoul of the establishment clause?
Tax payer funed Muslim foot baths, Islamic prayer rugs, Muslim-only prayer rooms, rescheduling of school events to accommodate Ramadan fasting, Muslim prayer before football games...OK.
Personal crucifix lapel pin, Christmas tree, "In God We Trust"...not OK.
Yeah, but the problem with the ACLU is that right after defending these God-fearing, true American causes, it turns around and defends a Satanic Mooslim.
A school system spends money on one religion and it doesn't run afoul of the establishment clause?
I didn't say that. Plus, as I am about to explain, it's in that murky area where Establishment and Free Exercise overlap.
Quote:
Tax payer funed Muslim foot baths, Islamic prayer rugs, Muslim-only prayer rooms, rescheduling of school events to accommodate Ramadan fasting, Muslim prayer before football games...OK.
It all depends on the circumstances. In most instances these things would probably be violations of the Establishment clause, in others they may be necessary to avoid a violation of free exercise.
Details are important. Do we not ALREADY schedule the entire school year around not having school near Christmas, eh? See what I mean?
Quote:
Personal crucifix lapel pin, Christmas tree, "In God We Trust"...not OK.
Who is wearing the pin? In what context? Christmas tree where? Motto where (there's already an exception for this, BTW, recognized by the courts).
Ditto this. What does the court opinion say, because that's the only opinion that counts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
