Whether they like it or loathe it, most Americans recognize the American Civil Liberties Union as a constitutional watchdog. Far fewer know of the American Center for Law and Justice, a leader in the flourishing field of Christian legal advocacy that may be less famous but is no less determined to see its views prevail in the nation’s courts and, ultimately, its culture.
The best-financed and highest profile of these conservative Christian legal groups, the ACLJ, headed by aggressive chief counsel Jay Sekulow, has led the way in transforming the complaints of the religious right from raucous protests on the courthouse steps to polished presentations inside the highest courts in the land.
These cases cover a broad range of religious issues, from defending a Texas high school’s practice of prayer at football games to an Illinois pharmacist’s right not to dispense drugs that violate his religious beliefs. Most aim at establishing precedent and all revolve around the conviction of the ACLJ and its colleagues that religious freedom, particularly that of Christians, is under attack by those who want to expunge all religious reference from public life.
Founded by televangelist Pat Robertson in 1990, the ACLJ has an annual budget of $35 million and employs about 130 people, including 37 lawyers, around the world, Sekulow said.
“They’re a very, very significant player in constitutional law, particularly regarding the 1st Amendment,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of the non-profit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who often has crossed swords with Sekulow.
Sekulow, he said, “had this very clever idea of using what might be called religious arguments in the past and transforming them into free-speech arguments. So children who want to engage in religious speech in a public school are engaging in a free-speech right, not a free-exercise-of-religion right.”
“most Americans recognize the American Civil Liberties Union as a constitutional watchdog”. I have never thought it was a constitutional watch dog. The ACLU is a far left organization that is very anti-christian. They have supported NAMBLA and Nazi but seldom ever have they supported a christian’s right to free speach. The ACLU is now working to insure that those that come into this country illegally and are using stolen social security cards are protected.
The ACLU will support a Christian’s right to free speech – such as defending the right of kooky street preachers ranting in the street or forcing Christian children to parrot words they do not believe. It won’t, however, support a Christian’s right not to perform an act that is contrary to his conscience. It is the latter issue that is the critical religious freedom that is being taken away by (usually) the liberal State.
Strange as it may seem, given my allergies to all things Pat Robertson, I am far more impressed with the ACLJ’s overall legal strategy than I am with the Alliance Legal group (I forget their name) and the Thomas More Center funded by Tom Monahan. The latter two, from my observation, are knee-jerking crusaders with all the self-defeating hysteria and court-alienating belligerance that go along with that. Thomas More’s recent crusade against the Arabic school in NYC is a good example of that. ACLJ is far better at pragmatically advancing arguments that a court will be likely to accept. Maybe the latter two are ok in handling zoning issues for churches, who knows.
Many years ago I had an employer who was driven to know how I voted in a presidential election, I told her it was none of her business as this was a private matter, she kept on insisting on knowing and I just as insistent refused to tell her…It seemed my worth as an employee was going to be judged on how I had voted or in effect what my political beliefs were. She eventually withdrew her onslaught and left me alone.
To make a long story short, Iam dismayed by the efforts of lets say Pat Robertson and his followers who seem to me to embrace all things politically conservative as being part of the salvation of ones soul.
I would have to say that the mission of the Church is not to be political pundits with clergymen labelling other organizations as Socialistic or advocating Grannys carrying guns etc. and using the pulpit or website to vent their beliefs as if they spoke for the entire church.
I would venture a guess that the church and it’s clergy’s mission is the Great Commission and nothing more.
I actually like the radio call in show ACLJ does, it’s very informative.
I have no problem with Christians doing this type of work, as long as they doing it in a upright manner that brings Christ glory, if you find yourself a lawyer then your call is to be Christ in your profession, in this case the edification is fair access for renting schools, work place freedoms and Bible studies on public school grounds.
From the article:[blockquote]”They cast themselves as a counterpoint to the ACLU and, in some ways, they’re right,” said Katherine Ragsdale, an Episcopal priest and executive director of Political Research Associates, a think tank that monitors the political and religious right. “The ACLU represents tolerance, freedom and protection of the Constitution, whereas these folks represent intolerance, oppression and the dismantling of our constitutional freedoms,” she said.[/blockquote]Tell us what you really think, Katherine.
“They have supported NAMBLA and Nazi but seldom ever have they supported a christian’s right to free speach.”
Well, generally the ACLU supports upholding personal protections guaranteed in the constitution. The ACLU has defended Christians when their constitutional rights have been abridged. They have also defended non-Christians. Obviously, the ACLJ [i] generally [/i] represents christians and intereprets the first ammendement in a way that is politically and socially advantageous to orthodox Christians. They too claim that they’re upholding the true and originalist view of the bill of rights, etc.
The ACLU is a left wing organization. It is secular in bias and I would waste no tears if it disappeared. 2, yes the ALCU wiill represent you so long as you speech is ineffective, but let it be effective and opposed to their agenda and they will join with those who shut you down.
Sorry, folks, as a lawyer I have dealt with the ACLU first-hand and can tell you they are simply a leftist political group hiding behind a “civil rights” facade. In my case we were trying to have them come on as co-counsel in a case where there was a statute that gave legal preferences to one discrete minority group against all other ethnic groups (including African Americans, by the way, who were among the class plaintiffs). They refused to support it, because they didn’t like the principle we were espousing, which is that all persons should be treated equally, regardless of race. Their position of course is that all groups are equal but some groups are more equal than others, and that it’s fine to give legal preferences to certain minorities (if they are the politically correct minorities) at the expense of others. It was still an eye-opener to see how they fielded our request. The federal courts did end up invalidating the statute as unconstitutional racial discrimination.
One of the first cases the ACLJ took on was the rights of the Hare Krishna’s to pass out literature on the streets of San Francisco.
Their argument was that supporting the rights of one religious group influences judicial decisions on/for ALL religious groups.
Re 9: I agree with that philosophy. I once successfully represented a New Age Buddhist group on a claim that they were improperly being excluded from a neighborhood in violation of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). To be frank, I wouldn’t represent a group that I thought was a harmful cult (for example, brainwashing potential converts), but this group didn’t fall into that category. Even though I didn’t agree with the Buddhist group’s religious beliefs I support their right to worship freely.
[blockquote]3. Ron+ wrote:
Many years ago I had an employer who was driven to know how I voted in a presidential election, I told her it was none of her business as this was a private matter, she kept on insisting on knowing and I just as insistent refused to tell her…It seemed my worth as an employee was going to be judged on how I had voted or in effect what my political beliefs were. She eventually withdrew her onslaught and left me alone.
To make a long story short, Iam dismayed by the efforts of lets say Pat Robertson and his followers who seem to me to embrace all things politically conservative as being part of the salvation of ones soul.
I would have to say that the mission of the Church is not to be political pundits with clergymen labelling other organizations as Socialistic or advocating Grannys carrying guns etc. and using the pulpit or website to vent their beliefs as if they spoke for the entire church.
I would venture a guess that the church and it’s clergy’s mission is the Great Commission and nothing more.[/blockquote]
Ron, you seem to have confused ACLJ, a legal advocacy group, with the church. Perhaps given the Episcopal Church’s saturation with former prosecuting attorneys (+Bruno, ex.) and legal attack dogs (Chancellor Booth Beers) who engage in vindictive litigation against congregations whose real offense is not being swept along with the zeitgeist, your confusion is understandable.
If you go to the ACLJ website or listen to Jay Sekulow’s radio show, you will find none of the absurd causes mentioned with which you attempt to smear faithful Christians who simply refuse to be cowed and silenced by this culture which is increasingly hostile to Christians, while it champions online porn peddlers, child molesters, cloning and embryo harvesting propagandists and school administrators and teachers who confiscate Bibles brought to school by children for their own use in off-class hours and throw them in the trash.
Your experience (really, harassment) with your former emplolyer was unfortunate. But don’t use it to smear honorable work by saying that those advocates make political affiliations a salvation issue or litigate to put a “gun-toting Granny” on every block. Or do you really believe that, in defiance of plain reality?
Milton I havent smeared anyone and your response is an unwarranted.
But I gues attacking somone with a different viewpoint is certainly in vogue these days and if you are making any reference to my faithfulness as a christian you should be ashamed of yourself.
I have heard clergy propagate exactly what I said and I stand by it, there are kooks on every side.
But I will pray for you.
Uh, Ron, does the plain meaning of English sentences penetrate your understanding? [b]You[/b] were the one who implied that reasserter churches make political conservatism a salvation issue. In my last paragraph I said that it was smearing churches and the ACLJ to imply that they had that viewpoint, which certainly the ACLJ does not have. I made [b]NO[/b]reference to your faithfulness as a Christian and you should be ashamed of yourself for playing the victim when no one here has attacked you. I will take your word that you have heard clergy propagate such totally inappropriate stands in the totally inappropriate forum of the pulpit. Just don’t smear the ACLJ by non-existent association unless you can produce specific examples as proof. By the way, if the ACLJ discontinues its work, don’t be surprised if the ACLU makes it unfeasible and even illegal for the clergy and you and I to carry out the Great Commission. I thank you for your prayers and I will also pray for you to have the peace of God which passes all understanding to ease your sensitivity to perceived attacks where there are none.
I understand the english perfectly Milton.
I repeat I havent smeared your group the ACLJ, that is your opinion that I smeared the reasserter churches,(I left TEC some time ago for an orthodox jurisdiction) I have in no way done this except to say that I have experienced folks on both sides who have connected their politics with the church and the viability of the invivdual as a christian.
Please also understand that I am no fan of the ACLU either, but I do resent clergy or laity from either persuasion using the bully pulpit to express their political stances.
I certainly dont feel like a victim but I aprpeciate your concern.
God Bless you as well and I pray you have a pleasant evening.