The ACRU Blog

On May 27th, the California Supreme Court heard a case which could have a drastic effect on religious freedom in that state.

From the San Diego Union Tribune:

The issue is whether fertility physicians at North Coast Women's Care in Vista discriminated against a lesbian couple from Oceanside when they cited religious beliefs in refusing to perform artificial insemination....

...That group says this is a "potentially landmark, historic case" that will decide the scope of religious freedom in the state constitution.

The ACRU filed an amicus brief on this case, arguing that a doctor has the right to refuse to perform a procedure on someone whose lifestyle goes against their religious beliefs.

Both Hans Zieger and John Armor will be on the radio March 4.

At 9:40am EST, Hans will be on with Jay Kersting on KLIK 1240AM. He will be talking about the attack on the Boy Scouts. You can listen live here.

Then at 11:33am EST, John will be talking to Greg Allen, on his show, "The Right Balance." He will be talking about the latest ACLU Outrage, ACLU argues over church tax exemption. You can find your local affiliate here or listen online here.

Jennifer LeClaire, a reporter for The Voice, has written a great article on the ACLU's assault on religion.

ACRU Legal Counsel John Armor had the following comment for the article:

Organizations like the ACLU are using the constitution as a weapon against the expression of religion. The founders intended that government should not be in the business of promoting one religion over the other, not that the government should be hostile to the idea of religion.

John Armor will be on in Bozeman, MT on December 27, 2007 from 11:12-11:57am. He is talking to George Carter and the Valley News and Views Show on KMMS AM 1450. John will be talking about Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and the assault on Christmas on the Oklahoma campus

Peter will be on with Mark Dorenkamp on KGLO, Mason City, IA from 11:00am-11:25 EST. He will be talking about the War on Christmas, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. You can listen live by going here and clicking the "Listen Live" button on the top of the page.

Peter Ferrara will be on The Right Balance with Greg Allen talking about the Religious Freedom Amendment. His segment is from 11:06am to 11:20am. Listen online here

(HT: PowerLine)

Dear __________________,

Thank you for your email and questions.

However, your questions betray a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Constitution actually says and does, given that you are presuming 1) that equality of outcome equals equality under the law and 2) that government-mandated political correctness over the consciences and convictions of private individuals and organizations is somehow the definition for what is "constitutional." Rather, what is constitutional is what is in accordance with the Constitution, our governing document that dictates what the federal government may do and what it must not do.

Taking your questions in order, then - and briefly:

First, discrimination is inevitable. You do it yourself every time you chose one product over another in the marketplace, or decide to befriend one individual and not another. You discriminate when you don't allow anyone and everyone free access and use of your home and property. The right of the Boy Scouts of America to determine its own moral code and impose conditions upon membership and participation in their private organization is recognized and protected by the Constitution. This is just as it is for you, me, or any other private organization.

Specifically, the right of the Boy Scouts to discriminate (i.e., determine its own membership requirements free from outside coercion) is bound up in the sanctity of private property (Amendments III, IV, & V) and its freedom of conscience (religion), speech, and assembly (Amendment I) - collectively known as the Freedom of Association - is clearly protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Second, there is no inconsistency in our support of the Boy Scouts and our stated mission to preserve equality under the law. Equality under the law simply means that everyone will be treated the same by the laws of the land, and that these laws will be applied without favor to one individual or group over another. Fundamentally, what the American Founders mainly had in mind was that our government leaders would not be free from prosecution for crimes that would most certainly lead to the average citizen being prosecuted. There is no special "above the law" status that is to be afforded to any aristocracy or specially-favored group in America. However, when a law is passed that applies to one group or individual and not another, equality of law has necessarily been violated.

Therefore, any law that "protects" a class of people from "discrimination" (especially when it does so by violating the freedom of association of another individual or organization) has introduced an inequality under the law. That these politically correct laws may be aiming for some greater equality of outcome (in someone's mind) does not alleviate this fact; to attempt to achieve this requires the subtraction of some individual's property and/or rights and the redistribution of that property and/or special privileges to individuals among the group or groups now favored by the law.

Finally, that atheists and homosexuals are barred from membership and positions of leadership with the Boy Scouts is most certainly not in conflict with our mission to preserve equality under the law for all Americans, as guaranteed by the Constitution. Private atheistic and pro-homosexual organizations - and even scouting organizations of the such - have the same rights as the Boy Scouts. Their freedom of association - to admit or not admit members and leaders under whatever criteria they should choose - receives the same protection under the law as the Boy Scouts have. We believe that is good and right, and certainly constitutional.

In conclusion, our actions in regard to the Boy Scouts of America are not hypocritical, as you suggest, but are entirely consistent with our stated mission and values.

Respectfully,

Eric Langborgh
Director of Development, The American Civil Rights Union

The Kitsap Sun ran a delightful, and also distressing, article on July 11 on the inability of the Bainbridge Island Council and Mayor to decide whether to say, or not say, the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of their meetings. Most readers might think that is not a difficult question, but in the People's Republic of Washington State, it is.

A new member of the Council, who is an Air Force veteran from the Vietnam War, raised the issue. Other members of the Council objected, some because they resent the Pledge and consider it false in its claims. The Mayor tried to force the issue, and received a backlash from the Council. So, she tried to punt the issue to the Council for decision while she was on vacation, and the Kitsap Sun got its fingers on the e-mails back and forth.

The Mayor said that she "disappointed" Council members when she "forgot to say the pledge," and engendered "bitterness and resentment" when she did. One Councilman wrote to the Mayor, "Darlene, this appears to be very manipulative and self-serving." To the Council Chair he wrote, "She leaves and asks council to self implode from their own stupidity! Let's consider the fallout before we do this." The next day, he apologized for letting "my inner child take control."

In the meantime, neither the Council nor the Mayor have reached a final decision on whether the Pledge will be said at Council meetings. The ACLU has repeatedly attacked the Pledge in federal courts for its phrase "under God." However, it has not to our knowledge attacked any local governments like the Bainbridge Council for reciting the Pledge. Such an attack would be remarkably unsuccessful. According to a poll conducted by the Kitsap Sun, the local residents say by a vote of 63% to 34% they want the Pledge to be said.

Go here to find this story on the Net:
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2007/jul/09/still-no-decision-on-taking-the-pledge

Investors Business Daily ran an editorial entitled, "Jihad in Schools," on July 9. It describes a program in a San Diego public school for setting aside 15 minutes a day for Somali Muslim students to pray at Carver Elementary School. And it has added Arabic to its teaching. And it has segregated boys from girls in classrooms. And it has banned pork and other non-Islamic foods from its lunchroom.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations defends this program. What is interesting is the position of the ACLU on this. Whenever Judeo-Christian actions, or even single words, are at issue, the ACLU mounts its high horse and claims that "the separation of church and state are being violated." Yet this is an instance of far greater intrusion of religion into a public place and into the pockets of the taxpayers, and the ACLU is tellingly silent.

Apparently there is no principle of separation of mosque and state in the United States.

Go here to find this story on the Net:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=268874251390676

Two lesbians have brought a complaint against a park, owned and operated by the Methodist Church, for refusing them the "right" to have their civil ceremony (wedding?) in a pavilion there. The response of the Church is that it doesn't allow civil unions of any type in that pavilion, that it is used only for religious purposes including weddings.

The lesbians are strongly supported by Garden State Equality, which represents the "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community." (We have no idea what the "intersex community" is.) The complaint is made under the Public Accommodations Law in New Jersey, the same one which was used to attack the Boy Scouts of America for rejecting a homosexual as an adult leader. (That case ended with the US Supreme Court ruling that the Scouts were exercising their "freedom of association" under the First Amendment, reversing the NJ Supreme Court which had ruled that the Act could be applied to the Scouts.)

If it is pushed that far, this case could wind up in the US Supreme Court. If so, the clause about "freedom of religion" should cause the lesbians to lose their case against the Methodists.

Go here, to find this story on the Internet.

I just discovered that my most recent Op-Ed has been picked up by a local paper in Texas. My article - "Approval of Religious Expression Reveals False Dichotomy" - appeared in the Jacksboro Gazette-News and The Jack County Herald on June 12, 2007.

The facts for this blog, but not the conclusions, come from an article in the Detroit News on 18 June. The University of Michigan at Dearborn proposed to spend $25,000 on footbaths at the local campus, for Muslim students to use before their five-times-daily prayers. The reason for that was that "students might injure themselves, washing their feet in bathroom sinks."

There was significant local opposition to this proposal, on the grounds that a public university shouldn't be spending money for the benefit of one religion only. The Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that the money for this would have to be raised privately if the ACLU filed suit to stop the project. (CAIR did not flat-out offer to raise or provide the money.)

The ACLU, however, gave the project a clean bill of health, if you'll pardon the pun. The Detroit branch of the ACLU (perhaps the most compliant branch that CAIR could find) issued a statement that this was a "cleanliness issue" and that there was "no intent to promote religion."

Unless some organization which understands the First Amendment better than the ACLU stops this project with a law suit, $25,000 of the tax-payers' money will be used to build these footbaths. At least, since they belong to the public, anyone should be able to use them, even students who wear classy, pigskin shoes.

Two days ago I had the opportunity to do a radio debate with Dr. Jeremy Gunn, Director of the ACLU's Religious Freedom Project. Let me say at the outset that I found Dr. Gunn to be a courteous and intellectually honest man, and I am grateful for his willingness to discuss with those having a different point of view the often heated question whether the Cross may properly, under the First Amendment, be displayed on government property as part of a war memorial to fallen soldiers.

I am in no positon to make a judgment about who "won" this debate. Those who had the chance to listen to it should draw their own conclusions. (If any of our readers heard it, I would welcome their assessment of how it went). I do want to mention one point, however, where in my view the ACLU position came up short.

Part of the debate concerned the war memorial in the Mojave Desert. A Cross is displayed there, although at present it is covered by a box -- this a result of a court order forbidding the display, at least until a higher court has the opportunity to rule on the matter. It is my understanding that the Cross is eleven miles from the main road, so getting to a point where one could even see it is no small feat.

The ACLU is litigating whether the Cross may remain. The gist of the ACLU suit, in this and similar litigation, is that having only a Cross shown at a war memorial sited on government land is an impermissible establishment of religion, namely Christianity, at odds with the First Amendment.

The problem with this position in the Mojave Desert case is that the land on which the Cross is located is no longer owned by the government. It is private property, having been given over to a private group in order to meet the ACLU's objections. Yet the ACLU still wants the Cross removed, arguing now that the plot of private land is too small to create any meaningful differentiation from the surrounding parcel, which is still government owned, and (I believe) that the bidding process under which the private organization obtained the land was tilted toward a group that it was known wanted to keep the Cross. The ACLU characterizes this as "evading" the First Amendment.

I characterize it as complying with the First Amendment. The Constitution poses no barrier to erecting a Cross on private property. Thus, the fact that the Mojave Desert site now is private property should have been the end of the ACLU's interest in the case. Whether the amount of private land surrounding the Cross is "big enough" has little if anything to do with the constitutional principle that, so we are told, was at the heart of the ACLU's original concerns. Under these circumstances, it is fair enough to ask whether the real motivating factor here is less constitutional rectitude and more old-fashioned hostility to religion. This single case does not, in my judgment, answer that question, but it makes it a fair question.

I have no doubt that some on the ACLU's side bear no hostility toward religion, and are committed, however mistakently in my view, to what they see as a constitutional principle. But I likewise have no doubt that there are some who simply dislike religion, or detest it, and it would bolster the ACLU's credibility to admit as much.

My suspicions in that regard are heightened by the particular facts of this case. The memorial is literally in the middle of the desert. Once a person arrives at general site, which would take some doing given its location, he would need to go another eleven miles, I believe on foot, to see the Cross. The idea that a memorial so remote does irremedial damage to the Constitution -- or does any damage at all -- is so far-fetched as to border on the preposterous. Under the circumstances, it is dificult to see the ACLU's determination to persist with this suit as motivated by anything other than an obsession, and not by either legal, much less analytical, thinking.

Sometimes it takes good news to reveal how bad things really are.

A headline yesterday in the Dallas Morning News stated plainly, "Senate Approves Religious Expression Measure," referring to the Texas Senate. Yet, it is peculiar: hadn't the First Amendment of the United States - and virtually every state constitution, as well - secured our right to the free exercise of our religions, as well as the expression of our beliefs (which "free exercise" necessarily entails")?

The first two paragraphs reveal the deeper story here:

Texas students' religious viewpoints in class assignments would be treated the same as secular expression under legislation approved by the Senate and sent to the House.

Under the legislation, religious beliefs expressed in homework, artwork and other assignments would be judged by traditional academic standards. Students couldn't be penalized or rewarded because of the religious content of their work.

That this legislation is necessary means that students who express their religion - through speech or inclusion of religious words, symbols, or imagery in their assignments - have and are being penalized for doing so. (Presumably, some may also be rewarded.) As the story indicates, the quality of a student's work could be judged differently for choosing to express some aspect of religion than a work that expresses something only "secular."

When America's Founders crafted the First Amendment, they included a number of protections, including clauses guaranteeing the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. It must be noted that doing so was both superfluous and necessary. It was superfluous in that, as noted above, practicing one's religion necessarily entails the right to speak about it, so speech is speech, regardless of content. It was necessary because practicing religion involves more than just speech.

Nevertheless, the fact that there are these two clauses has led many Americans over the past seven decades to increasingly put religious speech and "non-religious" speech into separate categories. This misunderstanding (out of ignorance by many, but deliberate by others) coupled with the oft-misapplied Establishment Clause, has been used as a battering ram against religious expression in the public square, schools, and government. (I've addressed this misapplication most recently in my post, "The ACLU Takes on James Madison and the Founders on School Prayer.")

The key to remember is: speech is speech, regardless of its content and the philosophical or religious presuppositions it conveys. Some worldview or another is reflected anytime anyone opens their mouth or puts words to paper. To restrict certain types of speech because it flows from one worldview and not another is to violate both the spirit and the letter of the First Amendment.

That religious speech has apparently been penalized and not afforded the same respect as all other speech in Texas is worrisome, but not surprising. This false dichotomy reveals itself in myriad ways across America, often being pushed by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. But they are wrong, and we can be glad that the Texas Senate, at least, is standing up to them.

Of course, the American Civil Rights Union is standing up for the civil rights of all Americans, too.

When James Madison penned the Bill of Rights in 1789, surely the idea of blocking local school children in Monroe, LA in 2007 from solemnizing their graduation ceremony with prayer was his intent, right? After all, he objected to official prayers, Thanksgiving proclamations to God, congressional chaplains, and worship meetings held in federal buildings while in the first congresses under the new Constitution, didn't he?

Well, no.

In fact, when Madison's good friend Thomas Jefferson - no Christian he, and often cited for support from those seeking a radical "wall of separation" between government and all things religious - did things that would make today's ACLU go berserk, Madison and the other Founders that sought to protect the states from an established national church were content.

Madison voted with Congress on December 4, 1800, to allow for the Capitol building to double as a church building - where Jefferson as president often chose to worship. Nor did he object when Jefferson began similar Christian services in the Executive Branch, both at the Treasury Building and at the War Office.

When Madison followed Jefferson into the presidency, he followed his friend's tradition of worshipping at the Capitol. And he went further, issuing several proclamations for public days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.

If all this is so, then why does the ACLU object so strenuously when students at local schools wish to mark their graduation with prayer and thanksgiving to God? How on earth can the ACLU interpret the voluntary religious actions of a small school in Monroe, LA - even if led by school officials, which they aren't - as an establishment of religion?

Certainly, the Founders warned and worked against the establishment of a national church or religion under the Constitution. They did this while maintaining a highly favorable view of religious expression and worship by public officials in official settings up to the highest levels of national government. And they saw no contradiction in doing so.

So why is it that the ACLU - in the name of "religious liberty" - seeks to establish secularism all the way down to even the most local level? Who really is it, in this debate over school prayer, that is being consistent with the Constitution and intent of the Founders? Perhaps the ACLU should rethink its position, or at least come clean with its real intent, which is to overturn the Constitution and the great majority view of the people at those points it most disagrees.

The California Catholic Daily features an article discussing the effort of the American Civil Rights Union and others to protect a private doctor's right to refuse to administer medical procedures that violates her religious convictions.

As described in the article, "Right to Refuse", a California doctor at a fertility clinic is being sued by a lesbian for that doctor's refusal to artificially inseminate her. Naturally, the ACLU and a slew of homosexual activists have lined up against religious freedom in the case, Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, et al, is now being heard by the California Supreme Court.

For our view, be sure to read Bill Otis's op-ed, "Another Type of Conscientious Objector."

My colleague John Armor notes below ("ACLU Gets It Dead Wrong in Indiana") that our friends at the American Civil Liberties Union have sued Indiana, alleging that the state's failure to charge a fee for a license plate bearing the national motto, "In God We Trust" constitutes discrimination, since the state does charge a fee for other "specialty plates."

John points out that the "In God We Trust" plate is not really a specialty plate, but is one of two standard plates the state issues without a special charge. This would seem to be enough to dispose of the ACLU's complaint. Still, there is reason to hope the ACLU will not come out as badly as seems likely:

If it prevails, perhaps the next lawsuit should be brought by the ACRU, seeking to have the ACLU return to sender all of the oodles of money it receives bearing the same indigestable motto.

The following op-ed from the ACRU's Director of Legal Affiars, Bill Otis, appeared in this morning's issue of the Orange County (CA) Register:

California Focus: Another Type of Conscientious Objector
Doctor is sued for declining to create an out-of-wedlock pregnancy

It wasn't that long ago when liberals, to their credit, fought for freedom of conscience. For decades, they spoke up, in public and in court, for the rights of workers whose religious convictions prevented them from working on the Sabbath; for American Indians whose religious rituals involved the use of peyote; and for young men whose religious scruples forbade them from taking up arms, no matter how urgent the country's military needs. In each instance, liberals rose to defend the religious freedom of small and sometimes despised minorities.

That was then. This is now.

The California Supreme Court will soon decide a religious-liberties case called Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, et al., and liberalism appears to be suffering from constitutional amnesia.

Guadalupe Benitez, who is unmarried but has a gay female partner, in 2000 sought North Coast's assistance in becoming pregnant. The clinic, through the assigned physician, Dr. Christine Brody, attempted to help Benitez by giving her a procedure that did not directly involve insemination; Brody has religious objections to pregnancy and childbirth outside marriage. The treatment failed, and Benitez asked Brody to undertake a more invasive procedure, intrauterine insemination, in which the doctor directly injects the sperm, bringing about a pregnancy.

On religious grounds, Brody declined. However, another North Coast physician referred Benitez to an outside specialist in intrauterine insemination, and North Coast agreed to pay any extra cost involved by virtue of the fact that the specialist was not covered by Benitez's health insurance plan.

With the specialist's assistance, Benitez became pregnant and now has a healthy son. Nonetheless, Benitez has sued North Coast and Brody, asserting that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation, in violation of California law. Brody and North Coast have responded that their actions are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. and California constitutions. The American Civil Rights Union has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on their behalf.

No fair-minded person supports invidious, state-sponsored discrimination against people because they are gay. But Brody and her clinic are not agents of the state, and they have strongly held religious beliefs. Those beliefs - shared by millions - are that pregnancy and childbirth outside marriage are morally wrong. No one doubts the sincerity of Brody's principles, and no sensible person doubts the mounting evidence that families without fathers harm children in numerous ways, including increased risk of academic failure, economic disadvantage and likelihood of involvement in crime.

In the world that liberals used to inhabit, this would be an easy case. Benitez may indeed have felt diminished by Brody's religiously-based decision. But in a country that takes religious liberty and freedom of conscience seriously - to the point of having enshrined them in the Constitution - Benitez's feelings and putative rights, however worthy in other contexts, are outweighed by the founders' wisdom.

The liberals of yesteryear would know this. Their support for the doctrine of conscientious objection proves the point. If, as liberals passionately (and successfully) have argued, the free exercise of religion requires that religious pacifists be exempt from military service even in wartime, then surely it requires that Brody and others who share similar beliefs be exempt from creating an out-of-wedlock pregnancy that would grossly affront their religion.

The social cost of the pacifist's decision is considerable: it is likely to increase resistance to military service in times of national emergency, and some other young man will be required to take the pacifist's place in battle, risking death. The social cost of Brody's decision is small by comparison.

If the free exercise of religion is to have any real operational meaning, if it is ever to have the power to enable a sincerely religious person to resist the power of the state, the California Supreme Court has only one route to take - to protect Brody's freedom of conscience, liberal amnesia and all.

My colleague Eric Langborgh notes in his piece below that the ACLU has taken umbrage at the offer by a private person to give Bibles to high school students, apparently during the school day. Eric quotes ACLU attorney Yale Freeman as saying, "There is a time to speak you[r] religious beliefs and that is in your church." Eric believes Mr. Freeman's words give away the otherwise "unspoken policy of the ACLU to push all religious expression safely inside the walls of church buildings."

To illustrate that the ACRU practices the free speech it preaches, I respectfully dissent. As has been widely broadcast, the "flying imams" have demanded that prayer rooms be set aside for them in publicly-funded airports, and the Muslim Student Association in Minneapolis has sought, it would seem successfully, to have taxpayer money spent on basins to be used at the local community college for the Islamic religious ritual of foot washing. If the ACLU has raised any objection to these things -- much less threatened a lawsut -- I haven't seen it.

Accordingly, it may not be the case that the ACLU seeks to push ALL religious expression safely inside the walls of the church. Evidently, some religious expression, namely Islamic, need not be pushed inside the walls of the mosque. Airports and public colleges are, in that instance, OK.

As noted, some religions are more equal than others.

The following quote by ACLU attorney Yale Freeman is astounding:

"There is a time to speak you [sic] religious beliefs and that is in your church."

Mr. Freeman said this in defense of the ACLU's objection to a private citizen offering Bibles to students during lunch at various high schools in Collier County, Florida. (HT: Stop the ACLU)

As local news stories report (here and here), many students and teachers gladly accepted the Bibles and thanked Jerry Rutherford, the giver of the gifts. And those who didn't want them were not forced to take them.

What is so astonishing here is not whether the Bible distribution was permitted by the school district's policy. (Indeed, it seems the policy prohibits such action, though the constitutionality of that policy is certainly in question.)

Rather, the blatant honesty of Mr. Freeman in his opposition to religious speech is what is so amazing. As he went on:

"There's really no reason to introduce it into the secular school system. There is plenty of opportunity to worship freely."

In other words, only Secularism is welcome in schools financed by tax dollars collected from all citizens, including the religious. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with this view.

In essence, Mr. Freeman has given voice to what has long been the unspoken policy of the ACLU: to push all religious expression safely inside the walls of church buildings. "Outside of official worship services, Christian," the ACLU is saying, "you are very welcome to keep your mouth shut."

Here's my question for Mr. Freeman: Where in the Constitution does it state that free speech is the right of all Americans excepting the religious, who must abide by special free speech zones in their churches and synagogues? What Founder advocated for this peculiar notion?

While the ACLU's position on this issue is absolutely wrong, at least their candor here is refreshing.

The attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union must be exhausted. It's not easy to contort one's reasoning in such a way that defends the Nazi's right to march while simultaneously supporting so-called hate crimes legislation. Perhaps a little consistency would be less hazardous to their mental health?

In recent weeks, the ACLU has come out in strong support of the American National Socialist Workers Party of Roanoke, VA -- a neo-Nazi group -- and their plan to march through a predominantly African-American neighborhood in Cincinnati tomorrow. This is par for their course: the ACLU pushed for -- and won -- the landmark Supreme Court case in favor of Ku Klux Klan expression, Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969).

At the same time, the ACLU has come out in favor of new hate crimes legislation sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR). The bill -- H.R. 1592 -- would allow federal law enforcement officers to more easily investigate and prosecute so-called hate crimes.

But what crime isn't motivated by some form of hate, or at least callous indifference towards the rights, property, or life of another? Can we not just prosecute the criminal activity -- as we always have -- without making the same criminal act against given classes of people more heinous than against other classes of people?

Not according to the ACLU, whose m.o. has long been that some people are more equal than others.

In effect, the ACLU's logic concerning hate speech is this: crude, hateful speech that advocates violence and crime should be protected, but politically-incorrect, hateful thoughts or speech directly related to an actual violent crime against certain classes of people should be prosecuted, over and above the crime itself.

Got that?

A white paper submitted by the Alliance Defense Fund explains how dangerous Sen. Kennedy's hate crime bill is:

H.R. 1592 is a discriminatory measure that criminalizes thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, and provides greater protection to some victims than others simply because of a status, whether chosen or inherent. The bill has the potential of interfering with religious liberty and freedom of speech as proposed, and creates additional risks for the future.

Make no mistake, that potential is real.

In 2005, Canada amended a very similar hate crimes law to protect homosexuals from "intolerance." During the two years preceding the passage of C-250, a number of lawsuits were filed against traditional Christians and Jews, with the Canadian courts generally sided against those traditionalists who spoke against the gay lifestyle and agenda. And since C-250 passed, the investigation and prosecution of Christians -- like this one -- has increased. "Hate speech" has become a "hate crime" in and of itself, even when not accompanied by criminal activity, violent or otherwise.

H.R. 1592 is bad law for a number of reasons. The tortured logic of the ACLU means that it could become even worse, proving once again that the ACLU is more interested in protecting the speech of Skinheads and Nazis than they are of devout Christians.

For those who may have been interested in yesterday's story of apparent state sponsorship of Islamic religious practices at a public college in Minneapolis, there is a follow-up today provided by http://www.powerlineblog.com. It is reprinted below. Powerline, incidentally, is one of the most informed, thoughtful and analytically sound blogs anywhere in cyberspace. I commend it to those interested in taking an aggressive stance against terrorism, winning instead of surrendering in Iraq, and preserving our freedoms at home, including freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Today's Powerline story on the Minneapolis college is as follows:

SHARIA DESCENDS IN MINNEAPOLIS

In her Star Tribune column yesterday Katherine Kersten reported on plans at Minneapolis Community Technical to accommodate Islamic ritual through the expenditure of MCTC funds to buy foot washers. One wonders how it can be that Islamic organizations can't provide for the religious needs of local Muslims. One wonders if the point is not precisely to compel non-Muslims to submit. My post on Kathy's column -- "Welcoming Sharia in Minnesota" -- elicited a message from the relative of a current student at MCTC noting a "controversy over, yes, publication of a cartoon critical of the prophet Muhammad. The short version is that a local cartoonist's drawing was to be published and the Muslim student organization objected. Therefore, the cartoon was not published." ... Cartoonist Grant Goebel explains his thinking in a related column. Goebel writes:

The Prophet Muhammad is Fair Game

Is it bad that I still think this whole thing is funny? I mean, that's the only reason you draw a comic strip; because you think it's funny. If you were to ask me right now why I wanted to do a comic strip on the Prophet Muhammad, I would say, "Because I think it would be funny." You may say, "I don't think that it's funny." That's fine. I don't think 'Family Circus' is funny. People differ. You may then ask me "why do you think it's funny?" As with any joke the answer is complicated, but it was summed up best by Krusty the Klown: "You always pie the guy in the suit." You make jokes about people with dignity: The Principal, the President, the Pope, the Prophet. I mean, jokes about Jesus are hilarious. Another thing I've heard, even from people that like the joke, is "you're asking for trouble." Those of you who would prefer to not see this comic strip in print may take note; my friends were urging me to not even submit it. They were afraid. They may not admit it, but they see the reports of "Muslim Extremists" and they've watched that Chuck Norris movie with the plane-hijackers too many times and they think they should be afraid. To silence this debate with fear would only make them more secure in their belief that it is dangerous to say bad things about Muslims, because Muslims are dangerous. Obviously I do not feel the same way, but the fact that I'm not supposed to make jokes about the Prophet Muhammad is one of the main reasons that I think they're funny. Again, you may not agree. But this is America. We have the right to free speech. That means that I have the right to make jokes, you have the right to call me an insensitive asshole and the paper has the right to feature both in print. I think they plan to. ###

They may have planned to, but they didn't. For the moment we have to be thankful that Goebel can express such heterodox thoughts within the confines of Minneapolis Community Technical College.

Whether a public college is impermissilbly entangled with religion would appear to depend on the college -- and even more on the religion. In her column today in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Katherine Kersten discusses what gives every appearance of being a double standard when the Minneapolis Community and Technical College tackled the entanglement issue. Religious practices linked to Christmas were put on the Bad List, while, we now see, those linked to Islam were put on the Good List.

Ms. Kersten's entire column is worth reading, but a few paragraphs, quoted below, sketch out this disturbing case:

[Minneapolis Community and Technical] officials say the college, a public institution, has a strict policy of not promoting religion or favoring one religion over another. "The Constitution prevents us from doing this in any form," says Dianna Cusick, director of legal affairs.

But that seems to depend on your religion.

Where Christianity is concerned, the college goes to great lengths to avoid any hint of what the courts call "entanglement" or support of the church. Yet the college is planning to install facilities for Muslims to use in preparing for daily prayers, an apparent first at a public institution in Minnesota.

The facts, but not the legal conclusions, for this post come from an article on 23 March in the Washington Examiner by Quin Hilyer. It recited that the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had just reversed a federal trial court in Contra Costa County in favor of a religious group that wanted to meet on occasion in a public library. (Keeping religion out of public libraries, and pornography in them have long been ACLU goals.)