I'm going to reprint here the email I just sent to Jay Stephenson. He sent me an email inviting me on his radio show, which I declined, but I sent him a long reply and I think it hits on some important points on our overall disagreement. Jay is clearly the most reasonable person at StoptheACLU, and his willingness to engage arguments without vitriol has earned my respect. So I offered these thoughts to him in all sincerity. Here's the letter:
I don't really have any interest in coming on the show. That's not because it makes me uncomfortable or because I think it would be unfair, I just don't see what I would get out of it. You are unquestionably the most reasonable person at Stop the ACLU (I don't know how you tolerate someone like Gribbit, who is just a juvenile bully wannabe and, intellectually, appears to be virtually braindead) and we probably don't disagree quite as much as it might seem. I have my disagreements with the ACLU too.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to take an accomodationist position on the establishment clause. I don't agree with it, but it's a coherent position and it can be traced directly to a common view among the founding fathers and how they viewed the first amendment. What I don't think is reasonable is the constant distortion of their position. All this rhetoric about them wanting to "destroy Christianity" or "remove all mention of religion from the public square" is just plain bullshit.
They are exceedingly zealous about anything that sends a message of government endorsement (sometimes too zealous, I agree, as in the McCombs case or the LA county seal case). But they are equally zealous about protecting private religious speech in the public square as long as there is no hint of endorsement - thus their consistent support for street preachers using public sidewalks, for student religious speech where there is no captive audience (I tend to think the captive audience standard is irrelevant myself) or government endorsement, and their position in Lamb's Chapel, for example.
The disagreement is over how nitpicky one wants to be on the question of sending messages of endorsement. You think the ACLU goes too far on that question, and so do I (though I don't disagree with the standard of avoiding such endorsements, just that they sometimes see a risk of endorsement where there isn't one, like in the McCombs case). But none of that has anything to do with wanting to "destroy Christianity" or eliminate all religion from the public square. They fully support private religious speech in the public square as long as there is no message of endorsement, as when there is a limited public forum and all groups are given equal access to use that forum (renting a public park for a rally, for example, or renting school facilities to show movies). As long as all groups have equal access to those fora, the ACLU strongly supports the right of religious groups to use those fora to express their religious views in full view of the public.
My point is that there is a credible argument to be made against the ACLU's interpretation of the establishment clause, but you're really not making it. There is a credible argument to be made for accomodationism rather than strict separation, but you guys spend so much time and energy throwing around ridiculous rhetoric about the ACLU trying to destroy America and destroy God and help the terrorists that you just come off as bombthrowers rather than thinkers who should be taken seriously.
If you want to sound more credible, stop parroting the rhetoric of Jerry Falwell and James Dobson and start looking at the positions of serious scholars who argue against the strict separation position. Forget the Pat Robertson rhetoric and look at the work of Michael McConnell, Rick Duncan, Phillip Hamburger (yes, despite the name, he is a respected scholar) or Lino Graglia. There are serious arguments out there for your position, but you can't make those arguments while simultaneously throwing around silly accusations of the ACLU being commie infiltrators out to destroy America.
- Log in to post comments
Sometimes I think it is just wishful thinking to hope to find reasoned arguments on the Internet. Hopefully, Mr. Stephenson will take some of this advice. I wonder if the mainstream media is a reflection of the Internet, or if we are a reflection of them. I tend to think it is a little of both
I had an invitation from Jay to appear on his radio show, too. Perhaps it was the fact that the invitation started with the sentence "I think you are complete ass" tipped me off to the possibility that just maybe Jay wasn't interested in a serious discussion...
My invitation did not include such insults. In fact, my correspondence with Jay has been respectful and polite. Of all the STACLU folks, he's the only one who seems the least bit reasonable to me.
After looking at meatbrain's blog, I seriously doubt this letter will have any impact on Jay.
I'd put Rick Duncan into the bomb-thrower category on occasion. You're closer to being correct, though. Duncan gives serious thought, and it's possible to discuss issues with him even when the distance between positions is enormous.
Well, I've had many an exchange with Rick, since we rarely agree on anything. Even at his worst, he's nowhere near the level of irresponsible and absurd rhetoric we hear from STACLU. And as you say, you can hold a rational conversation with him most of the time.
I've generally found that an internet discussion will be as civil as you make it. If you insult others, they are bound to return the favor; if you respond to their points in reasonable and level-headed ways, most of the time they will do the same. Of course, there's no accounting for trolls, but you can always ignore them.
As for meatbrain, I did insult him. That is because from the beggining he has only cast insults towards my site including accusing me of lies and name calling. Ed has always been polite and reasonable in his critiques. Meatbrain has only been an ass.
Jay,
Personally I've found that you're better off just maintaining the high ground when dealing with an ass. It may be amusing at times to slam them, especially when they honestly don't get it, but often times it gives others the idea that you're the ass.
[note: I don't know Jay or meatbrain, and haven't had a single post by either that I recall jumping out at me either way, just expressing an opinion.]
Ed,
I have to disagree with you on one fine point. I believe the "captive audience" interpretation to be quite correct. I believe that if there is a situation where the audience is required to be there for a government sponsored event, they shouldn't have to listen to a religious sermon. I personally can tune it out, so it isn't the point that I don't want to hear it, it's just the fact that there are some people who wont want to hear it, if they HAVE to be there, and it's because of a federal/state/local government requirement that they HAVE to be there, then they shouldn't have to listen to religious sermons.
When Jay deliberately makes an allegation that is not true, then the only word that describes him accurately is 'liar'.
I've been an aclu member since 2002. Looking over Stop The Aclu's site, I see no reason to fear. They are obviously wingnuts.