Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
After my response to Jay Sekulow's absurd arguments on ending all establishment clause suits yesterday, someone pointed me to this article at CNSnews that frames the issue in precisely the way the religious always frames such issues: it's those evil atheists. Here's the headline:
Supreme Court Urged to End 'Special Privileges' for Atheist Activists
What they want you to believe, of course, is that only atheists bring establishment clause cases. The reality is quite the contrary. One certainly does not have to be an atheist to advocate strict separation of church and state, and history proves that. The most staunch advocates of separation when it was being debated in the late 1700s were Baptist ministers like Isaac Backus and John Leland. And of course, there was James Madison himself, so serious a separationist that he even argued that Congressional and military chaplaincies were unconstitutional, who was not an atheist.
The same is true today. While the religious right loves to point to outspoken atheists like Michael Newdow and make him look like the bad guy, the truth is that most establishment clause cases are brought not by atheists but by regular old churchgoing folk. In fact, they're often brought by clergy. In the two major establishment clause cases dealing with evolution in the 1980s, McLean and Edwards, most of the plaintiffs were Christian clergy, including the leading Bishops of most of the mainline Christian denominations in both Arkansas and Louisiana.
Likewise, in last year's Dover trial, most of the plaintiffs were Christians, including more than one Sunday school teacher. And the director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Barry Lynn, is a Church of Christ minister. And many such cases are brought by Jewish individuals or organizations, who for good reason are very concerned with attempts to establish the Christian religion even in seemingly innocuous ways. So it simply is not true that only atheists bring such suits are advocate strict separation of church and state.
Of course, none of that should really matter at all. An atheist has as much right to petition the court as anyone else. This should be a non-issue. The only reason the religious right constantly frames the issue as one of Christianity vs atheism is because it allows them to emotionally manipulate their followers and get them to send lots of money in to fight those horrible atheists. It is demagoguery in its most pure and obvious form, and it's all about framing the issue in the most emotionally potent way.
Comments
Defending atheists? I wonder if any of the Pharyngula crowd is going to claim that the only reason you're doing so now is to be an "Appeaser", and not because you really feel strongly about it.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 5, 2007 9:54 AM
I've been reading Ed's blog for quite some time now and I have know him to stand up for what is right and have never known him to be an "appeaser." I'm sure he hasn't started that now. You must not be familiar with his blogs in the past to even suggest that.
Posted by: mmurphy21 | January 5, 2007 10:07 AM
That was defending atheists? I thought most of the post was geared toward talking about the believers that support church/state separation.
Either way, for saying it doesn't matter, Ed sure is interested in vetting global public discourse on atheism against whether or not it hurts the perception of science in U.S. public education.
After "atheist dystopia," the last paragraph in Ed's post felt pretty hollow to me. But you keep being impressed, doctorgoo.
Posted by: Dave H. | January 5, 2007 10:09 AM
murphy and dave...
I probably shouldn't have phrase it the way that I did. When I read this post, I immediately thought of the recent flareups where Ed was be accused of being an appeaser, even though I agree with you that he clearly isn't one.
PZ recently wrote off all of Ed's writings because of this single disagreement, even when they're on the same side, and I'm little curious to see if he'll continue to do so. See this:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/dawkins_repudiates_signature_p.php#comment-303990
Anyway, I agree, my comment had very little to do with the topic of this post. I apologize to Ed for putting in my two cents like this and risking a hijack of this thread to turn it into another flareup.
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 5, 2007 10:38 AM
Of course, the legality of the issue is much less important than the religious affiliation of the one bringing the suit...[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Daniel Morgan | January 5, 2007 10:51 AM
You just don't get it. Those "Church of Christ" people aren't "real" Christians, might as well call them atheists. And those old school Baptists, I thought everyone knew they were really just atheists too.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 5, 2007 11:26 AM
I'm new to all the scienceblogs.com blogs, having read both Dispatches and Pharyngula (and so others, too, with great pleasure) for only the past couple of weeks, so I'm in the dark over the origins of the apparent on-going dispute between Ed Brayton and PZ Myers and therefore won't comment on its merits. However, the bad feelings between the contestants and their respective "camp followers" seem to lead to people to focus on personalities instead of ideas and to distort what's actually been said.
This entry from Ed isn't a defense of atheists or believers who support church/state separation; it's a defense of the idea of church/state separation and the right of all people to enforce that idea through litigation. That's all. On its face, there's no inconsistency between the idea Ed expresses here and a great variety of views on merits of religion and atheism.
Does anybody have something constructive to say about Ed's thesis in this entry? It simply doesn't address the relative merits (social, political, ethical, or otherwise) of atheism and the various strains of theism. Apparently Ed has expressed views on that subject elsewhere, but has he actually written something that so obviously contradicts his thesis here that one should doubt the sincerity of this entry? What basis is there to question the sincerity of the claim he makes in this entry? If there's none, what's the point of the ad hominem attack on Ed?
I fear that people caught up in the dispute between Ed and PZ are reading stuff into entries that simply isn't there.
Posted by: knutsondc | January 5, 2007 11:35 AM
Jesus christ, can we just let go of this Ed vs. PZ bullshit. This post has nothing to do with that drama bomb.
Posted by: Will | January 5, 2007 11:49 AM
I tend to agree. Besides, when PZ and Ed lapse into airing their personal dislikes on their respective blogs, it's almost always anything but subtle, with no need to read anything into anything.
Posted by: Orac | January 5, 2007 11:59 AM
knutsondc wrote:
Ah, blessed clarity! Quite right, and thank you for pointing that out.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 5, 2007 12:03 PM
Yes, yes. I agree with all of you. I regret posting something that was clearly off topic. I deserve this scolding, and I wouldn't be surprised or offended if Ed deletes my above comment or any other that brings back the whole Ed/PZ issue.
Some thoughts I should just keep to myself! :-)
Posted by: doctorgoo | January 5, 2007 12:06 PM
Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but my first impression of doctorgoo's first post was that doctorgoo was making a quick joke at the expense of certain unhinged militant atheists, not Ed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2007 1:14 PM
Bee - once again, you are wrong. Not that it was a quick joke, (it was - and it was also off topic and out of place) but rather that you continue the "joke" with the "unhinged militant atheists" comment.
Everyone realizes that you don't like atheists because they don't hold the same reverence for christianity that you do, but you are a jackoff for the way you refer to other people and for continuing to try to hijack this thread. Move on.
Posted by: Cheeto | January 5, 2007 1:43 PM
What I find disturbing about the call to end the establishment of claus suits is the fact that unless you are Christian, you must be an atheist. This is actually a religious war that has started 2000 years ago and continues today with similar crusaders differing from their predecessors only in the armor they wear. In this war, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, are all atheists.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | January 5, 2007 1:54 PM
NO MORE SANTA CLAUS?
Ed I didn't see a link to the article you are referencing but isn't this all a extension / rehash of H.R. 2679 from earlier last year?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 5, 2007 2:29 PM
Poorly phrased above...
Isn't this an extension of what they were trying to (did) accomplish with H.R.2679. The bill dealt with money, now this as an extension is a call to abolish all suits on the guise of it being an atheist "conspiracy"? Both working basically to the same goal.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 5, 2007 2:33 PM
I find it interesting that the "special privileges" that gays/atheists/etc supposedly need to have taken away are always the exact same privileges that Christians also enjoy.
The way they never seem to so much as comment on this seems to imply that straight christians are entitled to special privileges, but no one else.
Posted by: Coin | January 5, 2007 2:45 PM
NO MORE SANTA CLAUS?
The War on Christmas continues :(
Posted by: Coin | January 5, 2007 2:50 PM
QUERY XVII -- The different religions received into that state?
by Thomas Jefferson
Notes on the State of Viriginia, February 27, 1787
...Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment [of religion] at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it.
They do not hang more malefactors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissensions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparalleled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws.
Posted by: Rhampton | January 5, 2007 4:00 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp writes:
Actually, if Sekulow's argument is accepted by the Supreme Court, it would have a vastly greater impact than would passage of H.R. 2679 which, IIRC, simply denies recovery of attorney's fees for plaintiffs who successfully prosecute Establishment Clause cases. In its fullest extent, Sekulow's argument would derail most lawsuits claiming that a government spending program violates a specific constitutional prohibition by denying mere taxpayers standing to sue. This would not just greatly increase the cost of challenging unconstitutional spending programs in federal court; it would kill most such litigation -- and not just Establishment Clause cases.
Posted by: knutsondc | January 5, 2007 5:10 PM
Yes, this proposal is considerably worse than the ban on fee-shifting proposed last term.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 5, 2007 5:23 PM
Coin said: I find it interesting that the "special privileges" that gays/atheists/etc supposedly need to have taken away are always the exact same privileges that Christians also enjoy.
That's it in a nutshell. Christians like Jay Sekulow can't seem to grasp a world where their religious view doesn't get an advantage over others. They just don't get that some of us don't believe as they do, with as good (or better) reasons. It's the same mindset that interprets atheism as "being mad at God".
On that note, as a Dawkins-style atheist (call me arch, call me militant, even call me rabid, but don't call me fundamentalist), I thank Ed for his continued efforts in the good fight, and I echo those who are way tired of the Ed vs PZ wars. Enough already.
Posted by: MarkP | January 5, 2007 5:44 PM
Sorry, I didn't read the whole post from yesterday. Pretty intense stuff there. It is FAR beyond the "reimbursement" issues of HR 2679. Curious, did Sekulow have any direct hand in H.R. 2679 other than obvious support? I'm not sure how it works but do Representatives like Hostettler frequently openly hire Organizations like the ACLJ to help write their legislation (not saying that did or did not happen with 2679)? Or does it have to be a behind the scenes thing?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | January 5, 2007 5:46 PM
I don't know if Sekulow or other groups had a direct hand in writing that legislation, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. It's quite routine for bills and amendments to be written by lobbyists and outside groups and given to a legislator to submit.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 5, 2007 6:15 PM
Its not surprising to see aspiring theocrats pull this kind of stunt. The first step when defending an extremist position is to play up the fear of the Other, so they say that the esablishment clause is being used a part of a Vast Athiest Conspiracy.
Then having built public support for their proposal they diminish the ability to use the establishment clause and thereby sideline one of the three branches of the US government and the one least susceptible to lobbying. Add a bit of sustained political pressure and you have a shiny new de facto theocracy.
Posted by: James | January 5, 2007 7:33 PM
Ed Brayton said in the opening post,
Ed, these "regular old churchgoing folk" generally aren't fundies. Do you know of any establishment clause lawsuits that have been filed or supported by fundies? Fundies' 1st amendment lawsuits are normally under the free exercise of religion or freedom of expression clauses, not the establishment clause. So fundies have little or nothing to lose if establishment clause suits are banned or restricted.
Posted by: L. Breckinridge | January 6, 2007 5:58 PM
Do you know of any establishment clause lawsuits that have been filed or supported by fundies?
Caldwell v. Caldwell olol
Posted by: Coin | January 6, 2007 6:08 PM
The brain-lesion chieftain at your favorite blog has seized the opportunity to flaunt his ignorance again.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/01/06/time-for-the-supreme-court-to-say-no/
I honestly don't know how these hillbilly douchebags manage to fire up their computers, open browsers, and navigate to nonrandom URLs. It's just not normal to see people this openly dumb bothering with anything resembling political blogging.
Posted by: Ira Fews | January 6, 2007 6:21 PM
Coin said,
OK, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Ed Brayton has this crazy idea that the fundies should support Americans United for Separation of Church and State just because that organization is headed by a Christian minister.
Also, I am wondering why this taxpayer-standing thing is an issue. According to this taxpayer-standing principle, the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover had no standing to sue because the ID statement did not involve an expenditure of tax funds.
Posted by: L. Breckinridge | January 6, 2007 8:10 PM
L. Breckenridge wrote:
Perhaps you could quote me saying something even remotely like that; I don't recall ever having done so. What I did say is that framing the separation issue as Christians vs atheists is false and absurd and I offered several reasons for that claim. What you have done is avoiding engaging that argument by erecting this straw man argument and beating that up instead. I don't think acceptance of strict separation even necessarily correlates with theologically conservative Christian views; Isaac Backus and John Leland were certainly theologically conservative Christians, yet they were firm advocates of separation in the strictest sense.
Uh, no. Sekulow is arguing that even if a policy does involve an expenditure of tax dollars, that should not give someone standing to bring an establishment clause suit. In essence, he is arguing that there can be no standing for an establishment clause suit at all; that is clearly absurd. An unenforceable constitutional provision is a provision that might as well not exist. It's highly absurd for someone who claims to support an originalist reading of the constitution to essentially declare one of its provisions to be void for all practical purposes.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 6, 2007 8:52 PM
Has anyone pointed out the fact that the separation of church and state people, and the aclu are in fact, not honoring the idea of separation of church and state? In that- it is not enough for them to fight for say- exact equality for say- gay couples in every way as far as legalities and civil unions. Of course they should be equal to married couples in all they enjoy with finances and inheritances or wills etc... But they go PAST that to demand "Marriage." Which, is by the way- the CHURCH part of civil unions with a biblical basis! Civil unions aren't enough but they cross the separation of church and state to FIGHT for WHAT THE CHURCH REPRESENTS AND OFFERS... convenient... Also- "Separation of church and state" was for the purpose and with the meaning that no republic, government, country etc could decide HOW one would worship... it was already assumed at that time- that of course- everyone was worshiping- and that the one being worshiped was Jesus Christ... and that people were and would continue- to worship... there was never an intent to not allow worship of Jesus specifically- in public or civic areas... only that the state could not dictate HOW they would worship...Jesus. Er... assuming again- that they would be worshiping... oh- how far we've come...
Posted by: Nicole | January 7, 2007 12:11 AM
Nicole wrote:
For crying out loud, this kind of stupidity takes practice. No, a marriage is not, in our legal system, the religious equivalent of a civil union, nor is it necessarily religious. People whose weddings have nothing at all to do with churches, like those who get married at Vegas wedding places or by a judge or state official, don't have a civil union, they have a marriage. Marriage is a legal institution that exists throughout the country; civil unions only exist in a few states. And none of this has a damn thing to do with the separation of church and state.
Wow. Just wow. You are way, way out of your depth here, Nicole. And your preaching is going to do nothing but annoy us. When your IQ hits, you should sell.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 7, 2007 12:17 AM
Ed Brayton said ( January 6, 2007 08:52 PM ) --
You said in your opening post:
.
Here is what Sekulow wrote in his article:
So Sekulow did not say that it is just "those evil atheists." Sekulow must be aware that many of the people who file or support these establishment clause lawsuits claim to be religious and I doubt that he would try to fool anyone else into thinking otherwise. And people can be considered to be "antagonistic to religion" even if they present themselves as churchgoers. For example, Judge John E. Jones III has presented himself as a churchgoer, but his statement about the Founders' "true religion" in his Dickinson College commencement speech showed great hostility towards faith-based religion and organized religion: "The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry."
And I am arguing that if being a taxpayer is the only basis for standing in establishment clause lawsuits, then there cannot be any standing to sue in establishment clause cases where no expenditure of tax funds is involved.
Anyway, I think that the courts are making all of this too complicated. Here is Findlaw's description of the Supreme Court case that Sekulow cited:
The appeals court's opinions on the case are at --
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/decisions/lower_court/051130p.pdf
Posted by: L. Breckinridge | January 7, 2007 5:48 AM
L. Breckinridge wrote:
Oops. I intended to say "religious right", not religious. That should be obvious since I spent the rest of the post arguing that many religious people favor strict separation of church and state and thus would not frame the issue that way.
Oh, of course not. Who could possibly think that Sekulow would use emotion-laden framing to manipulate his audience? Seriously, are you that naive? Sekulow not only does that, he flat out lies at times in order to manipulate his followers to send their money in. I've given many examples of this over the years, but I'll mention just one. When Sekulow successfully argued the Lamb's Chapel case before the Supreme Court (and I'm glad he did, the decision was absolutely correct), the day the ruling came out he went on the 700 Club and told Pat Robertson and those watching the show that this was a "great victory over the ACLU." There was just one small problem with that: the ACLU was on the same side in the case. The ACLU had filed an amicus brief on behalf of Sekulow's clients, making the same arguments that Sekulow made in court on their behalf and urging the court to find in their favor. There is only one reason why he lied about this: because demonizing the ACLU is their primary fundraising tool. And besides, how many of their followers could possibly know who had filed briefs on which side? The same is true here of atheists. Atheists are the single most unpopular and distrusted group in America. Pretending that those on the other side are nothing but atheists is a deliberate tactic to play on those fears, when the reality is that most establishment clause cases are brought not by atheists but by mainstream Christians (as in all of the evolution cases) or by minority religious groups, particularly Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses. But saying that undermines the emotional impact, so he frames the issue as "atheists and others". If you really don't think this kind of framing is intentional, you are living in a fantasy land.
You've provided us with another reason why this kind of framing is absurd: the pretense that wanting separation of church and state is equivalent to "hostility toward religion." This is yet another dishonest framing device used ubiquitously by the religious right. How on earth does Jones' statement show "hostility" toward religion? He is making a simple statement of fact about the views of the founding fathers which, while I think it was too broad, is certainly accurate in describing the views of the 6 leading founders (Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton). But does that make them hostile toward religion? Such a statement is too broad to have any meaning.
Let's take Adams for example. Adams rejected almost everything about Christian doctrine - the trinity, the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, and so forth. Yet he firmly believed in God and firmly believed that without religion there would be no virtue in the world (that second claim was rejected by Jefferson, by the way). And Adams was also not a strict separationist. So was Adams "hostile" or "antagonistic" toward religion, organized or otherwise? Or take Isaac Backus or John Leland, both theologically conservative Baptist ministers, men who had spent time in jail because of the religious establishments in Massachusetts and Virginia. That made them staunch separationists, naturally. Did it also make them hostile or antagonistic toward religion? Of course not, and only an idiot would suggest that it did.
The point is that this simplistic equation of supporting church/state separation with hostility toward religion is stupid and it's dishonest. But that is, again, the way the religious right constantly frames the issue. And they do this quite intentionally, because it has maximum emotional impact on their followers. It scares them. Those evil atheist secularists are coming to destroy religion, that is the myth they promote and it is a myth that has served them very well and kept the donations flowing in for decades now. That's why Jerry Falwell, in another classic example of such lying, wrote a column a couple years ago about a group of students who were suspended from school for handing out candy canes with bible verses attached to them. He railed and railed against the suspension (and rightly so, the school was clearly wrong) and then declared that those kids have a right to hand out religious literature to their classmates (and he's right so far) "no matter what the ACLU says." But guess what? The ACLU, once again, was on the same side. In fact, the ACLU had intervened on behalf of those very same students, sent a letter to the administration telling them that they had violated the law, and convinced the school to drop the suspensions and apologize to the students. This is the kind of highly dishonest framing that goes on constantly, and this is why I am exposing that framing for what it is: a lie.
And you're still not getting it. The argument being made by Sekulow is that being a taxpayer is NOT a proper basis for standing in establishment clause lawsuits. He is wrong, for the reasons I explained above. The text and structure of the establishment clause is inconsistent with both his argument and yours.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 7, 2007 1:46 PM
Ed Brayton said,
I am saying that I doubt that he would hurt his credibility by going so far as to try to fool others into believing that these establishment clause lawsuits are never filed or supported by people who claim to be religious. And I don't see what his motive would be for trying to fool people in this way. That is just my opinion.
Well, maybe Sekulow did not bother to read or look at the ACLU amicus brief. Maybe his memory slipped. Or maybe -- as you said -- he deliberately exaggerated. Who knows.
Amicus briefs -- along with whether they urge affirmance or reversal -- are often listed in Supreme Court opinions, but were not listed in the Lamb's Chapel opinion.
How do you know? The religious beliefs or affiliations of plaintiffs are often not stated in establishment clause cases, and where we do have such information it often comes from outside sources.
As for your statement that all evolution cases were brought by "mainstream Christians," that is simply not true. You often just pull your "facts" out of the air.
Your opening post says that the religious [right] "always" frames the issue as "those evil atheists." Now that I have shown that statement to be wrong, you are moving the goalposts.
Jones essentially said that Christianity is not a "true religion." His bias would be clearer if he had expressly said the same thing about, say, Judaism or Islam.
So what he said was just plain wrong, wasn't it?
I am just saying that the courts have not been consistent in how they have applied this "taxpayer standing" principle to establishment clause cases.
Posted by: L. Breckinridge | January 7, 2007 5:19 PM
L. Breckinridge wrote:
Well of course he wouldn't be that specific. But whenever you hear the issue mentioned, the discussion is always about atheists filing such suits, when the reality is that most such suits are not filed by atheists. And his motive is exactly what I said, to make people identify separation of church and state with atheism and accommodationism with Christianity. That does wonders for fundraising.
How about anyone who has a clue about such cases? If you're the lead attorney in a Supreme Court case, you know damn well who has filed briefs on both sides. You've read the briefs on both sides. Any other claim is a pure fantasy. He didn't "exaggerate", he lied.
Actually, we know it quite easily. I have written about all of the evolution cases that have been brought in the US. I know who all of the plaintiffs were in those cases. There are three major ones - McLean, Edwards and Kitzmiller. In McLean and Edwards, most of the plaintiffs were clergy and bishops from all of the mainline Christian denominations, including the official state level leaders of those denominations in Arkansas and Louisiana. I am in the process of writing a book about the Kitzmiller case, and I can tell you that most of the plaintiffs are Christians, including more than one Sunday school teacher. The fact is that most such cases are not filed by people like Madilyn Murray O'Hair, but by your next door neighbors, normal churchgoing folks. My facts are quite correct and were pulled from actual research, not from thin air.
Nonsense. My argument remains true, that the religious right always tries to frame the separation issue as Christians vs atheists. And they do indeed.
Nonsense. Judge Jones is a Christian himself, for crying out loud. All he did was describe the views of the founders, and he did so accurately (though too generally; some of them would not fit his description). He didn't say anything at all about the truth or falsehood of Christianity. Nor would it matter if he did. Scalia has talked and written often about his Catholic faith. Does that make him "biased"?
No. What he said is an accurate description of the views of the leading group of founders (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin). There was nothing other than separation from England on which all of the founders agreed, but that hardly stops us from speaking of them in a general sense when referring to their beliefs.
Well then that was pointless; that's exactly what I said in my post. Not only is it inconsistent, it's not constitutional.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 7, 2007 5:55 PM
Ed Brayton said,
I am not saying that he didn't know that ACLU had filed an amicus brief -- I am saying that maybe he didn't look at it or read it, or maybe he forgot what it said. Sometimes it is impractical to read all the amicus briefs in an SC case because there are too many -- in the Bakke case there were 62.
You weren't talking about just the "major" ones -- you were talking about all of them. And what about Epperson v. Arkansas, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, and Selman v. Cobb County? They were also "major." And there was a minor one that was never tried, Hurst v. Newman.
You said that "all of the evolution cases" were brought by "mainstream Christians." That simply isn't true. And what about the cases where there were non-Christian co-plaintiffs? The lead plaintiff in Selman was Jewish.
Unless your book gets your facts straighter than they've been in this blog, your book is going to go over like a lead balloon.
I don't care.
So even you admit that he said something wrong. There were a lot more Founders than just the biggest ones -- 39 delegates signed the Constitution. And by the way, he made those remarks about the Founders' "true religion" while standing behind the Dickinson College seal, which was designed by the two Founders who started Dickinson College and which contains a picture of an open bible and the college's Latin motto which means, "Religion and learning, the bulwark of liberty."
If he said that his Catholic faith is the only "true religion," yes.
It was the district court and the appeals court which said that taxpayer standing is lacking in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation -- all Sekulow is doing is asking the Supreme Court to affirm. The courts are making this too complicated -- again, here is how the question is presented:
The appeals court's opinions on the case are at --
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/decisions/lower_court/051130p.pdf
I think that the courts have here painted themselves into a corner by means of conflicting precedents.
Posted by: L. Breckinridge | January 8, 2007 6:00 AM
Hi, Larry? Ready to get banned again?
Epperson v. Arkansas - Christian Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish - Christian Selman v. Cobb County - Christian Hurst v. Newman - ChristianThey all had Christian plaintiffs. The fact that some of the plaintiffs in some of the cases were not Christian is irrelevant to the fact that all evolution cases had Christain plaintiffs. Why do you keep pulling facts out of your ass, Larry, especially when they are wrong?
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | January 8, 2007 12:30 PM
L. Breckinridge wrote:
This premise is false. Any injury to a legally protected interest suffices to create standing to sue in federal court. Although standing to sue in Establishment Clause cases often is premised on the plaintiffs simply being taxpayers, it's hardly the "only" basis for standing. For example, being a student or the parent of a student attending a public school could give standing to challenge alleged violations of the Establishment Clause committed by the school even if the alleged violation involved no direct expenditure of public funds.
Posted by: knutsondc | January 8, 2007 1:38 PM
Yeah, that has to be Larry: same dogged haggling over peripheral issues, same blindness to the most obvious central principles of ConLaw, same unresponsiveness to ideas outside his confort-zone, same refusal to acknowledge the basic moral and mental vacuity at the heart of whatever side he's taken, even the same vast amounts of white-space after each clumsy block-quote.
Hey, Larry, does your brother know you're here? Send him my condolences, willya?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 8, 2007 4:03 PM