Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Harvard University

2008-06-15T04:44:38Z

Adg2011:

{{University
|name=Harvard University
|background=Crimson
|type=Private
|city=Cambridge, Massachusetts
|sports=baseball, basketball, heavyweight crew, lightweight crew, cross country, fencing, field hockey, football, golf, ice hockey, lacrosse, skiing, sailing, soccer, softball, squash, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball, water polo, wrestling<ref>http://www.gocrimson.com/</ref>
|colors=Crimson
|mascot=Crimson Tide
|website=http://www.harvard.edu/
}}
[[Image:Harvard u.jpg|left|thumb|300px|Annenberg Hall, the freshman dining facility, (copyright Harvard)]]
'''Harvard University''' is a private university located in [[Cambridge]], [[Massachusetts]]. It ranked #2 in US News's 2008 "National [[University|Universities]]: Top Schools" list.<ref>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php</ref>

Founded in 1636 (as Harvard College), it is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. It was originally founded by Congregationalists for the purpose of training ministers.

Harvard is one of the eight schools in the [[Ivy League]] and one of four to accept applications from homeschooled children.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg. 12</ref>

Rev. John Harvard was the son of a butcher whose family died when a plague swept England, leaving him an estate. Educated in [[England]], Rev. John Harvard was ordained, married and sailed for Massachusetts where he pastored the First Church of Charlestown. He then tragically died of tuberculosis at the mere age of 31. The College at Cambridge was then renamed in his honor him.

The school was highly religious in the 1600s. Among its graduates in that century, 50% were ministers. Prior to the Revolution, ten out of twelve of Harvard's presidents were also ministers. In the words of Harvard's founders:
:"After God had carried us safe to New England, and we ... rear'd convenient places for God's worship ... dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust ... it pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr. Harvard, a godly gentleman and a lover of learning ... to give the one half of his estate ... towards the erecting of a college and all his Library."

Harvard's Rules & Precepts (Sept. 26, 1642) declared:

:"Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life. John 17:3."

Of the 108 first schools founded in America, 106 were founded on Christianity, <ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-09-14&view=View</ref>

On October 18, a outbreak of [[scabies]] struck in a Harvard dormitory; it attracted little media attention and the causes were not investigated.<ref>[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520063]</ref>
==References==
<references />

== See also ==
*[[Yale University]]
*[[University]]
*[[Ohio State University]]
*[[Harvard Law Review]]
{{clear}}
==Notable Attendants==
{|background="none" width="100%" border="1"
|-
!A-F
!G-L
!M-R
!S-Z
|-
|valign="top"|
*[[John Adams]]
*[[Stephen Breyer]]
*[[Fred Brooks]]

|valign="top"|
*[[Alberto R. Gonzales]]
*[[Al Gore]]
*[[Theodore Hall]]
*[[John Hancock]]
*[[Charles Krauthammer]]
*[[Bill Kristol]]

|valign="top"|
*[[Barack Obama]]

|valign="top"|
*[[Andrew Schlafly]]

|}

{{Nb_US_universities|Massachusetts}}

Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt

2008-06-15T04:36:23Z

Adg2011: proof

FDR was a socialist, and probably the last US president to describe himself thus.

#FDR was perhaps the most openly socialist leader ever to occupy the White House, and his policies reflected a firm belief that government should control business and redistribute wealth. [http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update03.22.04.htm The Liberty Committee (a lobbying group)]
#Many attacked Roosevelt as a socialist, but he ardently refuted these accusations and the principles of Marxism. In truth, Roosevelt did not despise big business. In fact, he realized that the trusts in the latter half of the nineteenth century had indirectly increased the standard of living for nearly every American. He did, however, dislike the power of the trusts and the fact that the American public had little control of them. Yet, at the same time, he feared giving too much power to labor. His Square Deal policies attempted to strike a balance between the two. [http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/troosevelt/context.html]

There is controversy over whether he was [[socialist]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:43, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Please don't delete the section on his decision to run for a third term before somebody writes an article on the Constitution in exile movement. I see the latter as absolutely central to modern conservatism, which is as much a reaction against Franklin Roosevelt as anything.

By the way, #2 above refers to THEODORE, not Franklin Roosevelt. Ironically, fans of Franklin typically designate Theodore as the last great Republican President. #1 is interesting, but Roosevelt never said, "''We desire not just equality in theory and opportunity, but equality as a fact and a result,''" as Lyndon Johnson did. Of course, Johnson didn't make [[Henry Wallace]] his vice-presidential nominee, either.

I believe it was with FDR that the Democratic Party moved from being a party of the uneducated masses to the representative of those segments of the elite which are pragmatic, yet a little jumpy. Whether one is a Democrat or Republican largely depends on which of the latter two adjectives one believes predominates.--[[User:Amyz]] 16:10, May 7, 2007 (EDT)

What does that thing mean when it says "specialized knowledge"? -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==Disambiguation==

"Roosevelt" should not redirect here. There should be a disambiguation page that can specify which Roosevelt. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:43, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:47, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
[[Theodore Roosevelt]] was also a famous President for another thing. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:02, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The whole article needs to be moved. Again. Look at any history book or encyclopedia; he is never referred to as Franklin Roosevelt, but always as Franklin D. Roosevelt. Same for any search...you are taken to Franklin D. on Google when you search plain Franklin. What were you guys thinking in re-directing it here? The template is wrong as well. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 05:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

==Anatomically impossible act==

This language obviously was cleaned up:

:"In August 1939...Assistant Secretary of State Adolph A. Berle, disclosed that a Soviet espionage cell was operating in the State and Treasury departments that included [[Hiss]] and [[Harry Dexter White]]... The president coldly told Berle to perform an anatomically impossible act [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_47_17/ai_80900413]

In keeping with our family friendly Commandments, should this be included? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:22, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

*IMO it could be safely paraphrased as "where the sun doesn't shine". Or the like, and link to the historically correct quote in the citations, eh? How is that for family-friendly and diplomacy? --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:11, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

==conservative aspects==

FDR has been described as one of the most conservative presidents, because he made just enough liberal changes to the role of the govt to save conservatism as a whole. Some say that without the changes he made, the U.S. risked a revolution, perhaps communist or fascist, like in several European countries at the time. I need to find a source for this, but I think it is worth adding. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 17:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Fourth term/ALP ==

The section on Roosevelt's fourth term states, "It was 825,000 votes from Earl Browder and Sidney Hillman's American Labor Party that gave him his majority." This is complete nonsense. Roosevelt's popular vote margin in 1944 was 3,594,987. In the Electoral College, a minimum of 6 additional (large) states would have had to have been carried by Dewey for the Republican to win the presidency. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:55, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== proof ==

I'd like a citation for this passage-

"Although Mr. Roosevelt was very popular, it has been argued by scholars and analysts then and now that many New Deal relief efforts actually helped to prolong the Great Depression. Mr. Roosevelt started the second wave of the massive expansion of the Federal Government and greatly increased American foreign aid. Some of these policies were coupled with a persistent high level of unemployment "

Talk:Conservative

2008-04-03T19:00:54Z

Adg2011: "Moral Virtue"

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

== George W. Bush a conservative? ==

Really, why is George W. Bush listed as a conservative? He's gladly helped to spend far more than the government is bringing in in taxes, and ballooned the budget to ridiculous, formerly inconceivable heights, he's promoted programs like No Child Left Behind, which gives the federal government more money and control of education, rather than eliminating the Department of Education, as a true conservative would, and he's gone along with all this horrible prescription drug benefit garbage, all the while never making a serious effort to fix our broken tax system or taking steps to free us from the onus of a completely worthless and hopeless social security program with no future. Hardly conservative. [[User:Flinker du|Flinker du]] 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just have to add this gem contributed elsewhere by [[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=80273&oldid=80267]:
:::''"one who adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral virtue."''
:::When did George W. Bush become a Liberal? He's zero-for-three on that list...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're at it, how can George Washington be a conservative if conservativism did not arise until the 19th century as stated in the article. I am taking him off the list. --[[User:Wikidan81|Wikidan81]] 14:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article includes ''"Return of prayer in school,"'' I'm going to guess this would mean like '''''The Lord's Prayer''''' and not the '''''Salaah'''''.

::And return of prayer to school isn't really conservative either - heck, most of American "conservatism" falls under propaganda to in fact increase the power and the size of the government. And I'd like to see what religion does with those values listed for conservatism... doesn't it, in fact, promote the opposite? [[User:Ninj4|Ninj4]] 20:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Probably no invocations to [[Nylarthotep]], either. The usual explanation for that is that Christians are the majority, so other, lesser religions just have to suck it up and endure. I wonder how well that'd go over in, say, [[Clearwater]], Florida? (Scientology world headquarters.)
::The First Amendment: proving once again that the Founding Fathers make our current politicians look like the retarded chimps they are. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::George '''H'''. W. Bush isn't a conservative? Weird. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is George Washington a conservative? That's what I want to know.{{unsigned|PandaBear}}, June/July 2007

George W. Bush is not conservative. A conservative is one who wishes to preserve traditional laws, values, ideals, etc as opposed to "doing away with" the afformentioned items. Globalism[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism 1] is not a tenet which is compatable with conservatism. It might even be considered one of the core principles of liberalism, because it seeks to do away with the traditional sovereignty of nations/states. George W. Bush is a globalist who seeks to undermine the basic sovereignty of the United States of America[http://www.spp.gov/ 2]. George W. Bush does not respect or desire to preserve the constitution for the United States of America[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf 3]. That document which might have been considered "liberal" at its conception, is sufficiently established so that it can now be considered a "traditional law."
A conservative stance on one issue (e.g. abortion) coupled with one or more liberal positions makes one a liberal. A conservative stance on every single issue immaginable coupled with one liberal position makes one a liberal. Someone can't be both. A "neocon" is a liberal who calls himself a conservative.

So could someone please explain again why he is on the list? with rational?

sources
1: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/globalism
2: http://www.spp.gov/
3: http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/powersurge_healy_lynch.pdf

[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 14:44, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

George Dubya is SO a conservative. He's a religious, traditional, war-mongering, anti-progressive, greedy, and freedom-restricting conservative who taps phone lines and is out to protect the interests of the rich. And why the hell would anyone want to eliminate the Department of Education? And what is wrong with taking the money of the filthy rich and giving it back to the community? --[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps because "taking" money that you haven't earned is theft? Or the government doing it is Communism? And, please get a clue before trolling here! All of your complaints were instituted by the Congress of the United States, not George Bush. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:03, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
::That post was funny. I think the user was a conservative parodist. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

==definition==
Could someone explain what is meant by "Economic allocative efficiency"? Sounds a bit like gobbledeygood to me. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==The List==
The list that is in the article refers to an article written by Jonah Goldberg, who was quoting John Derbyshire, who, in turn was quoting, ''John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, in The Right Nation , tick off the six fundamentals of classical, Burkean, Anglo-Saxon conservatism''. It was a fun romp tracking it down. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

If The List includes the list of conservative presidents, it would behoove you to remove Lincoln from the list. Conservatives of Lincoln's time supported the status quo, including the existence of slavery.

== Inaccurate information ==

"Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth."

This statement could not be further from the truth. Conservatives are the exact opposite of libertarians. To say someone is conservative and libertarian would be contradictory in terms. This statement should be some REPUBLICANS hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. This statement would be true because Republicans are LIBERALS economically and would in fact not want government interference with the economy. Therefore I am deleting this statement from the article due to the inaccuracy of the statement.
--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 00:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Around here, LiberalMedia, we communicate. Try it the next time. I have removed all of your changes. And I will continue to do so until you lower yourself to using this discussion as it was intended to be. FYI, libertarians do not believe in the government using forced income redistribution! --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never said that libertarians believe in using forced income redistribution by the government. Where did I say that in my paragraph above. If you could read, I was saying that conservatives do not hold the same view as libertarians on the redistribution of wealth. People that are economically conservative want forced income redistribution by increasing taxes, etc. People that are libertarians don't want the government to increase taxes and definitely do not want the government using forced income redistribution. How are users intended to use this discussion? Is it to give false information and make this site look like a joke? Or is it to give factual information. Hopefully, it is the latter. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 03:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Hey, LiberalMedia, you are the one who wanted the text that made the blanket statement that Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy, it wasn't me. One of they keystones of Democratic Party policy has been income resdistribution, not the Republicans, lol. You vandalizing the page as you did, adding the "Some Conservatives hold a strong libertarian conviction in the belief that the state should not interfere with the economy, gun control, and the redistribution of wealth. '''(This statement makes no sense)"''' will earn you a time-out. Perhaps Wikipedia will better tolerate your point of view? --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::* Where did I say that the Libertarians side with the Democrats? I never said that, in fact, I was stating the opposite. You probably just realized your error and are now trying to cover your behind. Did you even read my first paragraph? I never mention the word Democrat once in the paragraph. So where did you get this statement that "Libertarians side with the Democrats on economic policy." You must have made that up because I never said that. Libertarians side with Democrats on political issues and with Republicans on economic policy. Conservatives which this article is about side with Republicans on political issues and Democrats on economic policy.

*Your paragraph read: ''"In America, conservatives tend to align with the [[Republican Party]] on social issues and tend to align with the [[Democratic Party]] on economic issues."'' Since the major tenet of Democratic Party economic policy is economic redistribution, that would indeed imply Libertarians buy into that. Sorry if you cannot see my point. I have been involved with public policy, at the federal level for over twenty years, working with both parties. I think I can judge fairly well, the difference between what Republican and Democratic policies are. That doesn't excuse you being a vandal, which is by its very nature, intellectual dishonesty.--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* The error that you are making is thinking the Democratic Party is the same as the Libertarians. Why would it imply Libertarians to buy into economic redistribution if Democratic Party believes in it? The Democratic Party disagrees with the Libertarians on economic policy.

*Are you in Grade School? If you state, as your paragraph did, that Conservatives align, generally, with the Democratic Party on economic issues, that is saying they must buy into income redistribution. Conservatives do not buy into that. Surely you know that. Just as those Conservatives with a strong libertarian bent also do not. You are a vandal, I will not continue to reply.--[[User:TK|TK]] 04:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* No, I am in college. Conservatives do buy into income redistribution. That is exactly what I have been saying the entire time. Finally, you were able to figure it out. Conservatives can never have a "strong libertarian bent." They are complete opposite. Obviously realized that I am right and that is why you aren't going to reply anymore. How am I vandal? I am only a vandal if giving correct information on this site is considered vandalism.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 04:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Goodness! You, or your 'rents should demand your tuition back. Your professors are doing a crappy job, teaching you Conservatives believe in income redistribution. ROFLMAO!! --[[User:TK|TK]] 11:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:* TK, you are confusing conservatives with Republicans. Conservatives are not the same thing and have different views on economic policy. So if the statement "Conservatives believe in income redistribution" is not true then it means that Republicans believe in income redistribution. I am certain that you will agree that Republicans do not want income redistribution. Thus, conservatives want income redistribution.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 14:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*That statement of yours, above, LiberalMedia, is utter nonsense. Please provide a citation, other than some moronic revisionist college professor. If you keep changing things to suit your fancy, I will either restrict you, or lock the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:26, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*This is the definition of conservatism given by [http://www.dictionary.com Dictionary.com]:
::''A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.''

:Now look at the definition of liberalism:
::''A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.''

:Which one does a free market fall under? Liberalism or Conservatism? The answer is liberalism. If you look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism Wikipedia] they agree saying that economic liberalism is a free market ideal.

:The point that I am trying to make is that this article is talking about conservatism and its ideals. Not the Republican party agenda or anything of that matter. So when writing an article on it, it should be about conservative beliefs on social issues and economic issues. It doesn't make sense to start talking about economic liberalism because it is not the same as conservatism. Conservatism is about "big government" or to put it in terms you can understand, it is about government controls through established institutions(ex. taxes). Liberalism is about minimal government and freedom to do whatever you want, hence free market. In a truly liberal society there would be no government and it would be complete anarchy because everybody would have the freedom to do what they want.--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*I'm sorry, Liberalmedia, but most of us live in the here and now, the real world, where dogmatic thoughts, such as yours, mean very little. What things should mean, and what they actually are, usually are very different. I note you have nothing to back your nonsense about Conservatives supporting income redistribution, as opposed to favoring a generally flat tax, equal for all. This entry has nothing to do with either the Republican or Democrat political parties. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:*I never put that conservatives want income redistribution in the article. Maybe on this discussion page, but never in the article. In the article I only said a fact that conservatives align with the Republicans on social issues and Democrats on economic issues. Shouldn't an encyclopedia talk about what things mean and not talk about how they are in the moment? Otherwise, you would have to change this article every time the majority changes its opinion. Actually, conservative and liberal still mean the same thing today in the real world. It is just the ignorant people that think conservative means Republican and liberal means Democrat. Also, if you are suggesting that conservative is a synonym for Republican (which is what your advocating) then wouldn't the people that are liberal Republicans be an oxymoron. Or how about conservative Democrats? Do you understand?--[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 20:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*What I understand is, you quite possibly might get an "A" in debate tactics, however as an intellectual, an "F". I never introduced any text here, or in the article, equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party. That was you, and others. I am willing to concede, generally, that there are more "Conservatives" aligned with the Republican Party, than with the Democrat Party. Take a look at the article below.....provided for your edification. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Looking at the latin origin of conservative, i.e. conservare, indicates that it means high credt for the existing, since it has proven its usefulness until now. Therefore, the direct opposite of conservative is progressive, which gives high regards simply because something is new. Liberal in its general sense means maximum freedom of the individual. It depends on the further circumstances, whether this agrees with a conservative or progressive point of view. The direct opposite of liberal rather is a state or society which takes care of as much as possible, probably called socialistic. However, the meaning of these terms depart often from their original meaning, if they are used to "label" political groups or parties. --[[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]] 13 April 2007

*"generally flat tax, equal for all." Surely such an idea is an oxymoron. A flat tax cannot be equal for all unless everyone was receiving the same wage, same benefits and existed in the same socio-economic group. How is it fair to tax someone living at or below the poverty line the same rate as someone earning 6 figures a year? It just doesn't make sense. And another point >> Terry; what's with the flaming. Very uncool.

==Goldwater Conservatives==
<blockquote>"During the campaign of 1964, [he] was our incorruptible standard-bearer," recalled William F. Buckley, Jr., in his 1998 obituary of Barry Goldwater, the career senator from Arizona, 34 years after the watershed. Goldwater, of course, was defeated resoundingly on Election Day, winning only six states. "It was the judgment of the establishment that Goldwater's critique of American liberalism had been given its final exposure on the national political scene," Buckley continued. "But then of course 16 years later the world was made to stand on its head when Ronald Reagan was swept into office on a platform indistinguishable from what Barry had been preaching."

Strange, then, that these days many commentators believe that Goldwater's conservatism was a different species from Reagan's and, especially, from George W. Bush's. Though admittedly an economic conservative, Goldwater has become an icon of opposition to social conservatism. When the 2004 Republican national convention showcased social liberals like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani, George F. Will proclaimed, "[Goldwater's] kind of conservatism made a comeback." By "Goldwater conservatism" Will meant "muscular foreign policy backing unapologetic nationalism; economic policies of low taxation and light regulation; a libertarian inclination regarding cultural questions."

Will was merely restating the consensus view. Darcy Olsen, president of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, argued on the fifth anniversary of Goldwater's death that "Goldwater conservative" had "a different meaning than just saying, 'I am a Republican,' because when you say 'I am a Republican,' people assume that you're involved in the Moral Majority. It's its own brand...very libertarian." Senator John McCain said that Goldwater "disliked the religious right, because he felt they were intolerant, because Barry was not only conservative, but he was also to a degree libertarian."

What does the notion that Goldwater was a libertarian mean? First, it suggests that the cultural Right has abandoned true conservatism. It implies that presidents like Reagan and Bush, who have relied heavily on socially conservative voters, deviate from Goldwater's rugged and pure frontier conservatism. And then there is the implication, appearing frequently in the mainstream media, that Republicans must move back in Goldwater's direction if they are to reclaim their intellectual credibility.

But this interpretation happens to be wrong: it overlooks the role of social issues in the origins of the conservative movement. William F. Buckley, Jr.'s, God and Man at Yale (1951) complained not only about economic collectivism but also about rampant agnosticism and atheism among Yale's faculty. Ever since, the conservative movement has been as concerned with religious and moral issues as with economic and libertarian ones. Goldwater's 1964 campaign actually shaped the social conservatism of the modern Republican Party in at least three crucial respects: his view of human nature and the American republic; his concern over the moral deterioration of American society; and his stand on several key policy questions.

Human Nature

Goldwater articulated a view of the American Founding and America's purpose, as well as the nature of man, that was fundamentally moral, even religious, in character. In the introduction to his bestselling The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), Goldwater argued, "The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline." Conservative principles "are derived from the truths that God has revealed about his creation." In the first chapter, he (and his ghostwriter, L. Brent Bozell) wrote:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy.... Man's most sacred possession is his individual soul.

The 1964 Republican platform, the handiwork of committed Goldwaterites, declared:

Much of today's moral decline and drift—much of the prevailing preoccupation with physical and material comforts of life—much of today's crass political appeals to the appetites of the citizenry—can be traced to a leadership grown demagogic and materialistic through indifference to national ideals founded in devoutly held religious faith. The Republican Party seeks not to renounce this heritage of faith and high purpose; rather, we are determined to reaffirm and reapply it.

In his speech accepting the 1964 presidential nomination, Goldwater extolled "freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God." He warned that

those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

Reagan and Bush later echoed this language.

Goldwater decried the general moral decline of the time. On the campaign trail, he asked, "What's happening to us? What's happening to our America?" His campaign ran several television spots on this theme, which he called simply the "moral issue." In one commercial an announcer shouts, "Graft! Swindle! Juvenile delinquency! Crime! Riots!" before Goldwater proclaims: "Let this generation of Americans set a standard of responsibility that will inspire the world."

Another spot linked the corruption of government officials to moral deterioration. Goldwater exclaims, "Americans everywhere are indignant about the moral decay in Washington," while the narrator calls on voters to "put conscience back in government." A third advertisement asked "What has happened to our America? We build libraries and galleries to hold the world's greatest treasury of art—and we permit the world's greatest collection of smut to be freely available anywhere." A fourth featured Goldwater speaking directly into the camera:

Is moral responsibility out of style? Our papers and our newsreels and yes, our own observations, tell us that immorality surrounds us as never before. We as a nation are not far from the kind of moral decay that has brought on the fall of other nations and people.... [The] philosophy of something for nothing, [the] cult of individual and governmental irresponsibility, is an insidious cancer that will destroy us unless we recognize it and root it out now.

Goldwater made morality the centerpiece of a 30-minute televised address that aired on CBS on October 20, 1964. After citing George Washington's dictum, "'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,'" Goldwater said, "The moral fiber of the American people is beset by rot and decay," and pledged "every effort to a reconstruction of reverence and moral strength."

The campaign also produced, but did not air, a television program called "Choice." It focused on the "moral issue," and featured disturbing footage of topless bars, wild beatnik parties, drunken college students, and riots by both whites and blacks. Goldwater declined to use the film in the end, but only, it seems, because he feared that scenes of blacks rioting would introduce unseemly racial overtones into the campaign. But he had no inherent objection to addressing the other issues raised in the show.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.'s History of American Presidential Elections included a scathing contemporaneous account from John Bartlow Martin: "Goldwater's moral strictures soon began to sound preachy; he almost castigated Americans for their wickedness.... Goldwater looked not only like the mad bomber, but the half-crazed moral zealot." Sympathetic observers would characterize his message differently, but what is clear is that Goldwater hardly eschewed moral, social, and cultural themes.

The Rise of the Moral Issue

Nor did he discuss these themes in outline only. He and his party took a socially conservative stand on a number of policy issues. The 1964 GOP platform endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's school-prayer decisions and to permit voluntary school prayer. In his CBS televised address, Goldwater asked, "Is this the time in our nation's history for our Federal Government to ban Almighty God from our classrooms?" He answered: "Ours is both a religious and a free people. Over years past we have encountered no difficulty in absorbing that religious character into our state institutions, while at the same time preserving religious liberty and separation of church and state." Goldwater pointed out that his Democratic opponents ignored far more than just school prayer: "you will search in vain for any reference to God or religion in the Democratic platform." The Republican platform called for enactment of legislation "to curb the flow through the mails of obscene materials"; it criticized the Democratic administration and Congress for resisting tuition tax credits; and, not least, it emphasized the rise in crime as a moral issue, not merely a sociological one.

The Conscience of a Conservative devoted an entire chapter to education, anticipating its importance in the eyes of social conservatives. Goldwater paraphrased Dorothy Sayers when he wrote that Americans must "recapture the lost art of learning." He argued that

in our attempt to make education 'fun,' we have neglected the academic disciplines that develop sound minds and are conducive to sound characters.... We have forgotten that the proper function of the school is to transmit the cultural heritage of one generation to the next generation.

As a solution, he advocated a renewed emphasis on basic subjects, within the context of local control of schools.
In The Making of the President 1964, political journalist and election chronicler Theodore White wrote:

Goldwater could offer—and this was his greatest contribution to American politics—only a contagious concern which made people realize that indeed they must begin to think about such things. And this will be his great credit in historical terms: that finally he introduced the condition and quality of American morality and life as a subject of political debateâ€¦. Yet he had no handle to the problem, no program, no solution—except backward to the Bible and the God of the desert.

It's worth reflecting on this paragraph. Writing in 1965, White of course could not have predicted Goldwater's contribution to the long-term rise of conservatism. Nonetheless, this respected center-left analyst held that the Republican nominee's "greatest contribution to American politics" and his "great credit in historical terms" lay not in any impact he might have had on foreign or economic policy, but in the way he forced the "moral issue" onto the national agenda. White also had no difficulty identifying Goldwater's prescription: "the Bible and the God of the desert."

It should come as no surprise, then, that a number of veterans of the Goldwater effort later made names for themselves as leaders of the burgeoning grassroots movement of social conservatives. As Goldwater biographer Lee Edwards has pointed out, "almost all the leaders of the New Right...were drawn into politics because of [Goldwater]," figures like Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, and Morton Blackwell. For them, the transition was seamless.

Goldwater's move away from social conservatism came only in the twilight of his Senate career—and more starkly after he had left the Senate in 1987. Throughout the 1970s, he opposed abortion on demand and taxpayer funding of abortions. (He wavered on a constitutional amendment restricting abortion.) In 1980, in the midst of his last and most difficult Senate race, he endorsed the Human Life Amendment. Only in his final term did he adopt a pro-choice position, voting in 1983 against a constitutional amendment that would have reversed Roe v. Wade and returned legislative authority over abortion to the states. In 1984, he reversed his 1964 position by voting against a constitutional amendment to restore voluntary prayer to public schools. As late as 1985 he opposed "gay rights" legislation. Only in 1993, six years after leaving the Senate, did he change his view.

Goldwater's shift was largely a reaction against the leaders of the New Right, for whom his dislike grew stronger as their influence increased. In 1981, Goldwater said of the leader of the Moral Majority, "Every good Christian should kick [Jerry] Falwell in the ass." He also had personal reasons: one daughter and three granddaughters of his had had abortions; and a grandson and a grandniece were homosexual. In 1937, his wife, Peggy, had become a founding member of Planned Parenthood of Arizona, and the couple remained active in the organization throughout Goldwater's Senate career. Though he initially rejected Planned Parenthood's position on abortion, his long association with the group would ultimately make a convert of him. For Goldwater, private considerations like these sometimes trumped abstract philosophy.

Liberty and Morality

So how has the myth developed of the great gulf between "Goldwater conservatism" and Reagan's and Bush's? To begin with, several of the hot-button issues that later mobilized social conservatives en masse were non-issues in 1964, or had barely begun to stir. The '60s counterculture was inchoate, as was radical feminism. The downward spiral of social trends had just begun, as had the Left's crusade to obliterate religion from public life. Key court decisions on abortion, criminal rights, and gay rights lay in the future. Consequently, a distinct mass movement of religious traditionalists—a "Religious Right" with tens of thousands of foot soldiers—did not exist for the Goldwater campaign to incorporate. (To be sure, an intellectual movement of social traditionalists, including Russell Kirk, existed already and backed Goldwater.)

When Goldwater underwent his transformation as the years wore on, liberals rushed to embrace him. This Goldwater became every liberal's favorite conservative—not the historic figure who had condemned moral decay, extolled the religious underpinnings of American society, championed school prayer, inveighed against big government, and helped launch the modern conservative movement. Yet it was the latter Goldwater who ran for president, who galvanized Reagan and pointed the way to a long-term Republican electoral realignment.

Conservatives today need to revive Goldwater's argument in the '60s, and Reagan's in the '80s, that liberty is not only compatible with morality, it depends on it. Limited government cannot long coexist with a collapse of moral order; and an unlimited government is usually the consequence of an amoral society. Sweden, for instance, has both one of the most hedonistic societies in Europe and one of its most smothering welfare states. When in 1964 Goldwater told the graduating class of the Pennsylvania Military College that "it is impossible to maintain freedom and order and justice without religious and moral sanctions," he at once echoed George Washington and Alexis de Tocqueville, presaged Reagan, and issued a clarion call for future generations. </blockquote>

[http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1237/article_detail.asp]

:*Are you going to make a point or just post an article you found on the internet? You might not have put in any text equating Conservative or Liberal with either American political party, but you did reverse my edits and by doing so it makes it seem like you are equating conservatives with the Republican party. --[[User:Liberalmedia|Liberalmedia]] 21:30, 19 March 2007 (ED

'''[[BNP]]'''

The British National Party is not similar to the Republican Party.The BNP are in fact quite racist in their policies,something which the mainstream Republican party are not.--[[User:RCSENG|RCSENG]] 16:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal List. ==

Shouldn't the list of things on this page be the reverse of the list on the liberal page? At least as far as US definitions are concerned.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I've always been partial to [[Steve Jackson]]'s definitions:
:Liberal: Politically 'Left', whatever that means.
:Conservative: Usually mad at the Liberals.
Concise AND accurate!
--[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why was my addition deleted? ==

I'm just curious why my addition concerning the conservative's faith in God was deleted? Seems like that's the biggest defference between Librals and Conservatives, at least with respect to today's culture wars.

*I didn't do it, but I suspect it's because on the face of it, to suggest all Liberals don't believe in God and accept Jesus Christ, is not factual? This isn't a blog space for posting one's own beliefs, even if I personally might agree with your premise. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::There ARE [[Liberal Christians]]. They're the ones who take that communist propaganda in the Book of Matthew (Chapter 25:27-46) as something other than allegory. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:13, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

The article on evolution is locked. Please explain why this is as it violates the idea of a freely editable encyclopedia. The article is also extremely biased and contains very little information on evolution; is mainly the conservative Christan opinion on evolution and irrelevant information. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*I don't know why you posted about Evolution here. However, you are trying to apply standards set by other Wiki's here, and as you can tell from the rules and commandments here, this is indeed the CONSERVApedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
**I think he meant [[User:Conservative]] (Conservative's extremely creative nickname really makes things confusing sometimes). Well, actually, none of the rules says anything about the need to be Christian-conservative or YECist, unless I really missed a memo. That's what many people complain about: The obvious bias is not acknowledged in the rules. The only possible "reasoning" seems to be the "We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts" from the Differences page, with "facts" having a VERY interesting definition ("A fact is what either disses Wikipedia or supports America, the Bible and the YEC position. Anything else is just atheist liberals trying to deny the truth"). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
***Neutral? Why? Wikipedia started out with the same noble aims - neutrality, fairness, demands for attribution, a fair hearing for all views. Look where dedication to finding 'the facts' got them. The fact is that the internet is disproprortionately liberal, and wikipedia came to reflect that. And if conservapedia impliments exactly the same goals, exactly the same will happen. To be a conservative encyclopedia, it must be willing to recognise that only by giving conservatives an 'unfair' advantage can real fairness be achieved - otherwise the numerical advantage of liberals will just allow them to turn it into a second wikipedia. - BornAgainBrit
****Interesting, it seems you therefore support affirmative action towards those who hold conservative views. The article on this very site about the subject is extremely critical of affirmative action, and yet here it is being basically said that the conservative view is unable to compete in a marketplace of free ideas. Very disapointing! - Colduck77
**And no, please don't move this to Conservative's Talk page. He locked it again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Origins and conservative presidents ==

<s>If conservatism didn't arise until the 19th century, how was George Washington a conservative President? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)</s> Sorry, someone already asked this. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to definition==
Conservatism/Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights
Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should, to the greatest extent possible, be responsible for themselves & for their own success
Conservatives tend to believe that the best way to help people is through private means, rather than through government programs. right wing2

*"Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of individuals over 'group' rights..." Which is why conservatives in America are fighting so strongly for the rights of individuals to engage in any private, consensual sexual act they choose, right?

==Lincoln a Conservative?==
How was Lincoln a conservative? He brought about radical economic and social change in the name of human rights. He was against the institution of slavery that was a tradition in the South. He was also a Republican. At that time the Republican party was liberal.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:11, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with RestanceFighter. Lincoln was definitely not conservative. He was more of progressive because he brought change into America. It seems like the people who wrote this article think Republicans were the same as conservatives in the 19th century. --[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:34, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*You cannot in any intellectual way, or any logical way, apply our modern ideas of what Liberal, Progressive or Conservative is, and compare them retroactively to the past. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:58, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:We are not applying our modern ideas of conservative and applying them to Lincoln. You make it sound like definitions change over a hundred years. Which if that were it would make it impossible to read old texts and understand what the author was talking about.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:06, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree that Lincoln was a conservative. Restistance Fighter is right, he did break with the long held tradition of slavery. Also, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, taking a position of power not given to the president by the Constitution. This, in my opinion, is a very liberal act. Most historians have agreed that Lincoln was a conservative in the beginning, with the hope that he could keep the United States together under one federal government. However, his actions during the presdideny certainly do not match conservative policy. {{unsigned|Getbackloretta66}}

These people are absolutely right, Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative. In the 1860's and up until the 20th Century and about the New Deal era, the Republicans were America's liberal party.

Come on guys, Lincoln is well known as a Liberal; By his deeds and his words... We all know the greatest speeches were written by Liberals! *Cough* Seriously though, I know you guys want to claim all of histories great characters to your side of the fence (Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln (You'd probably make a stab for Roosevelt and Truman if you had the chance) but give credit where credit is due - Lincoln was a Liberal. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Andrew Jackson ==

If you are going to put Polk on the list of conservative presidents, then why don't you put Andrew Jackson on there too? Polk was a Jacksonian Democrat and had the same views as Andrew Jackson.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 22:41, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative communists?? ==

It would be good to add in further discussion of the term "conservative" in the article. When discussing the politics of countries ruled by a Communist Party, such as China, the word "conservative" is used to refer to Communist Party members, especially officials who hold to traditional communist values such as central planning, state ownership of the economy, stronger censorship of the media and stronger repression of dissidents and practitioners of religion, especially Christians. The term "liberal" used when discussing these matters refers to those Communist Party members who favour economic reform, with more private involvement in the economy, more freedom of expression and movement towards a more liberal political regime, perhaps even towards a democratic system. I believe the word also has further definitions which are worth discussing, and then some further paragraphs could be added to the article to make it more complete. {{Unsigned|Luojie}}
:''ROFLMAO !!!'' [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
It's true!! Check out the China pages of the South China Morning Post. BTW, there are also conservative and liberal Muslims. The former will adhere more closely to traditional Islam and are more likely to support terrorism than the liberal Muslims who want to live a more Western lifestyle, and so interpret Islam to fit their material and other desires.
:Yes, I recall the "Kremlin conservatives" at the end of the Soviet era, the reactionaries that wanted to preserve Communism. Very reminiscent of the reactionaries in the U.S. Democratic party who refuse to reform Social Security. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:12, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
As Ma Lik, the chairman of the pro-Beijing Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has just passed away, so the media (e.g. the South China Morning Post) brought up the word conservative as it is used in the Hong Kong political context. Here in HK, conservative means pro-Beijing, not wanting to introduce universal suffrage at an early date and in favour of keeping functional constituencies (legislative seats reserved for special interest groups such as tycoons). Pro-democracy groups which want universal suffrage as soon as possible and which place importance on human rights are considered "liberal", even though they may fit the definition of conservative when it comes to social matters such as gambling and small government[[User:Luojie|Luojie]] 09:30, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*It never ceases to amaze me the different colloquialisms we run into throughout the world. I am now on a personal campaign to fight the entire establishment to stop applying the term "Communist" to China, since there is not much left that could be properly labeled communistic in their economic system. They are really just a despotic regime, a rump tyrannical establishment group of old men, who replaced the Cult of Personality that was Mao. The Tyrants now running China will go to any lengths to avoid admitting Communism was an abject failure there, as it was every other place it was imposed. In point of fact, Communism was always imposed, never voted for and never really welcomed by the masses it pretended to serve. Nowadays wherever we find it, it is usually an Oligarchy in disguise. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:58, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

== Bulleted list? ==

Should the list of conservative people be a bulleted list? It looks a bit weird with just a name on each line and nothing else. [[User:SigmaEpsilon|SigmaEpsilon]] 23:42, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? Thanks for the suggestion! I restored your JS, btw. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:01, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Washington? ==

How is George Washington a conservative when he mounted a revolution to establish a new nation, based on democracy and not monarchy. Conservatives dont mount revolutions against the establishment, the want to "conserve" it. Washington and Co. were actually from the school of liberalism. If the addition of his name is because of the quote on religion, then i suggest adding every American president ever, as they all have aknowledged their belief in a higher power. I think the inclusion of Washington's name is a political ploy-something this website accuses wikipedia of doing. Thanks
--[[User:Billwsu|Billwsu]] 16:48, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Why not just note [[Ronald Reagan]] as a conservative and leave it at that? [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 00:09, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

The article is basically faulty since it's simply a laundry list of (supposedly)conservative policy positions with no attempt at discussing or analyzing the philosophy behind all of them.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 21:24, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== The nature of the page ==

It would seem to me that the nature of the page seems to be more in relation to the actual ideology of conservatism than of conservatives in general. Wouldn't it be more pertinent to have the introduction rewritten appropriately, and then move this page to an article entitled "Conservatism" (with the appropriate redirection, of course)? [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 21:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Neoconservative? ==

This description sounds more like what a neolibertarian would be. Neoconservatives would support increased government spending (especially on the military) and an interventionist foreign policy based on spreading democracy throughout the world (especially the Middle East). Neolibertarians also support an interventionist foreign policy, though as libertarians, they would support limited government and would be "amoral."

I think there should be "paleoconservative" (Pat Buchanan, etc.), "neoconservative" (Bush, etc.), and "mainstream conservative" (a mix of both ideologies, e.g. Reagan). The same should apply to the article on libertarianism - "paleolibertarian," "neolibertarian," "anarcho-capitalist," (party) "Libertarian," etc.

What do you think? --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 22:21, 3 December 2007 (EST)

:Where did this word, "paleoconservative," originate? I am beginning to feel uneasy about it without a source. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:10, 6 December 2007 (EST)

[[The Nation]], 20 October, 1984, according to Lexis-Nexis.[[User:Claude|Claude]] 14:14, 6 December 2007 (EST)

::Ahh, ''The Nation.'' Thank you. Now I have a starting point. If this checks out, we may have sufficient cause to nip this in the bud. Pat Buchanan, as far as I'm aware, does not refer to himself as a "paleoconservative," although I could be wrong. This type of liberal labeling and use of pejoritives may have gone too far already in Conservapedia. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:32, 6 December 2007 (EST)

== "Moral Virtue" ==

I believe that the phrase "moral virtue" is too vague for this article. I am a liberal democrat, and also believe I am morally virtuous, although not in the view of the US Republican party. Is there a perhaps more fair way of saying this? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 15:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

2008-04-02T01:49:49Z

Adg2011: Accusations of Stolen Gifts

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.
: I disagree. This is '"Conservapedia" and I don't mind a conservative bias. I'm tired of the liberal bias everywhere else and liberals trying to get rid of anything they don't agree with. I'm annoyed at seeing Hillary's smiling, happy face on all the other sites and I'm happy to see this picture. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 13:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know why bias (any bias) is bad in the first place? Becuase it makes us ignorant to the true state of the world. The cost of saying that "in my bias, slavery, the holocaust, and the murder and marginalization of the american indians never happened" is you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Has hillary made mistakes? sure! We all have. But no one's life is doomed to only their mistakes and failures, no matter how much that's all we care to see.

Bias, no matter where it comes from, is inevitable. We're all humans, we all have ideas, we can't help but convey at least a little of our ideas through what we do. So we may as well give up, for the most part, on trying to be impartial, because it's not really going to work anyway. As for ignorance, a person needs to be exposed to alot of bias before they can gain a good idea of the "true state of the world." --[[User:StevenM]] 11:52 Oct 10 2007

Did someone suggest that Hillary could be anything other than unattractive? LOL. The picture here is better than fair. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 22:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying so hard not to make a crude joke about that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh? The criticism of Hillary Clinton consists entirely of a poll? [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Most people it seems are made or broken based on their polls, even if the people polled do not understand the questions they are being polled on. [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]]

== Presidential Campaign 2008 ==
I think what she meant that no mother had been a MAJOR candidate for president. The correction is basically of very minor importance.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 19:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

RObS entire new addition regarding Hillary's possible "clinical condition" should be removed as gossip at best. The cited reference is a conservative website that references a book written by someone with no medical training, and yet we are to accept her as an authority on Hillary's possible mental illness? This is just a baseless smear. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:Baseless smear? Since when do smears need a base? It has been well documented, for instance, what an idiot George W. Bush is, without foundation. For example, Google Bush+idiot brings up 1,590,000 hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush%2Bidiot] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

It may be true that some people call people names but reputable encyclopedias do not. The Wikipedia entry on George W. Bush does not call him an idiot and does not offer anyones psycho-analysis of his character. I may not like it that the entire article is devoted to creating a negative perception of Hillary Clinton but at least most of it is seems factual. If you want to be taken seriously at all, you should remove paragraph.[[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:Oh really? What's this? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_on_the_Couch Bush on the Couch] and this [http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html Addiction, Brain Damage and the President] or this [http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April05/slime-mold.Bush.Cheney.ssl.html Slime Mold Beetle named for Bush] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathidium_rumsfeldi] All this found its way into the GW mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

The articles that you are citing are not part of the article on George W. Bush in Wikipedia. The "Bush on the Couch" article describes a book by that name and has a section that presents pro and con criticism of that book. The other articles aren't part of Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia has a whole section of books about George Bush and Hillary Clinton and divides them neatly into pro and con categories. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
:Go into the histories and you will find them. And you will also find a string of corpses from RfC's and Community banning of editors who protested that garbage for as long it stood. Sure, the trash was taken out after people who protested were banned for protesting it. That is the Wikiopedia way. And frrankly, at this point I don't care. It did it's damage when Bush still had better poll numbers, so obviously kicking the old boy when he's down seems cruel, doesn't it? Timing, is everything. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
I find it interesting that RobS justifies smearing Clinton in this article on the basis of smears against George Bush he alleges to have found on the internet at large. Sounds like he's got a small chip on his shoulder that is having a negative affect on his editorial policies. NitramNos 13:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't say it, it's a reputable citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

The list of "intriguing" symptoms Buchanan purported to include in her endnotes -- specifically endnote 74, Chapter 1 -- appears to be missing from the book entirely. Buchanan does not reference her study of "narcissistic personality style" elsewhere in the book.

Additionally, Fox and MSNBC failed to identify Buchanan as a senior adviser for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO). Buchanan's biography on the back of the book's dust jacket also fails to note her role as an adviser for Tancredo's campaign. The back cover includes a note of praise from Tancredo.

Human Events and Regnery Publishing are both subsidiaries of Eagle Publishing, a "leading conservative publishing company."

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==A genuine classic==
For you serious students of politics, and others who worship at the alter of public opinion polls, this Poll is a classic in the genre of public opinion molding and shaping. You just gotta love the choices given respondents,

*Very corrupt
*Somewhat corrupt
*Not very corrupt
*Not at all corrupt

Can we suppose the key idea here must be "corrupt"? and what influence do you suppose the wording may have had on the findings of the poll? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==For those who dislike this woman==
I have a funny picture i would like to share with you all (espically those who dont like her): [http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jul2003/BabyPunch.jpg funny pic] --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
: Hah. We can all find ''hilarious'' photoshoppings on the internet. We should probably also not try and look for the worst pictures of someone for their article - not too bad here, but the [[Al Gore]] article - eugh. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Hillary ==

Senator Clinton is the best Democratic candidate for President in the upcoming election.

Past both biases. You can't just insert opinion pieces into a "factual" article. If you want to be "conservative" in your writing, then get rid of the political/ideological opinion. This is ridiculous for a website that presupposes itself to be more factual than wikipedia.

== Her Friend, Dick Morris? ==

orly? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:53, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

*Dick was always more Bill's friend that Hillary's...but the truth is, for the first several years, until Morris wised-up, they were indeed calling each other friends. Now I think it safe to say he detests everything about her, while still liking Bill. I am missing the reference. Help! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:03, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:I can't find any ref that he gets along with either of them, or has for years. As far as I can tell, they fell out years ago and Morris now makes a tidy living crapping all over the Clintons. And before anybody says it, I really don't CARE about the Clintons being pooped on, I just was curious if there was any reason to characterize Morris as anything other than a political enemy of Clinton at this point? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 15:07, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, so we've talked about "her friend" being inaccurate here on the talk page, as is suggested at the top of the article. What's the next step? I don't want to overwhelm the page with suggestions that could get lost in a shuffle... [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:59, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-shut up and deal...''

== Corrections for this article ==

Well, for some reason I can't edit the article myself. However, I am Hillary Clinton. Your article characterizes me as a conspiracy theorist, which is unfair. I did not knowingly accept money from Peter Paul, but I have asked my staff to return the money which he supposedly donated if it is found that he is telling the truth. I do condemn the smear campaign on General Petraeus, which was clearly inappropriate. I am not an irresponsible cut-and-runner. I voted for and supported Barry Goldwater in 1964, though today I consider myself a moderate. I request that Conservapedia correct my article as it is rather offensive to me at the moment. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:14, 9 November 2007 (EST)

:Would you be willing to answer the question [[Ann Coulter]] posed:
::"How about having [[Tim Russert]] ask Hillary if she believes the [[New Testament]] is the [[perfection]] of the [[Old Testament]]? She claims to be a [[Christian]]. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23174 ''Human Events''], October 31, 2007.</ref>
<references/>

Rob, I don't see how an Ann Coulter quote you've dragged up is relevant to HClinton's suggestions. If you're curious, I would suggest posing such questions on her talk page instead. The talk pages for articles at Conservapedia, however, should remain on topic as much as possible. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 10:57, 10 November 2007 (EST)

*I hate to be a "party pooper", but when the ''real'' Hillary Clinton brought over danish this morning, she told me she had never registered with Conservapedia. Imagine my shock and dismay upon her telling me that face-to-face! I was absolutely crushed! Accordingly I have removed the parodist user. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:33, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Fair enough... I suppose it's all irrelevant then. In any case, TK can always just ask her himself. XD [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:56, 10 November 2007 (EST)

:*Indeed I did! And like the user pretending to be Hillary, ''the real Hillary'' objected to being called a "cut-and-runner as well. She wanted to make sure everyone at CP, indeed in the United States, knows that long before she supported the War in Iraq, she opposed it, and vocally, just as she has since deciding she was duped by that evil President George Bush, with his conspiracy to launch World War III.
:*And in speaking of conspiracies, she also asked that I let everyone know she isn't as conspiracy theorist at all, and resents those anti-feminists who portray her as such. Aside from the vast Right-Wing conspiracy out to smear her and her husband and the massive conspiracy of George W. Bush and the Haliburton Corporation to publicly fund the Middle East oil grab, she does not generally subscribe to conspiracy theories at all.
:*She added she is happy to directly and plainly answer the questions of right-wing cabalist and smear merchant Ann Coulter, if only she would define what the meaning of the words "Christian" and "perfection" mean. She looks forward to an open dialog with Coulter and the American people!
--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:43, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I don't see where it says she voted for Goldwater. She has always said she was a "Goldwater girl," and raised in a good Republican home. It wasn't until she went off to an Eastern elite college with a commie-dominated faculty and got mixed up with a lowlife scumbag that the [[prodigal]] child departed from the values her parents instilled in her as a girl. But there is such a thing as redemption; she can still make up for shame she brought to her parents by marrying that putz and find her Goldwater roots again. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:14, 10 November 2007 (EST)
::Easter elite college? Didn't bush go to Yale? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:57, 14 November 2007 (EST)

I don't think anyone really supports abortion, as it claims Hillary does a few times in this article. Can we maybe change that to "supports the right for women to have abortions"?

:I think that sounds fair. Can I also raise a warning flag here - when you compare this page against Huckabee's, then H Clinton hasd a lot of controversies listed, but M Huckabee does not. This seems to be ludicrously unbalanced. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 20:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Stolen Gifts ==

I do not see how this section of the article is relevant. It appears that the first family quickly realized its misunderstanding, and corrected it. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 21:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Hollywood

2008-04-02T01:48:13Z

Adg2011: New page: "Hollywood is a synonym encompassing all the definitions of 'glamor', 'beauty', 'fame', 'sex', and 'power' in a shallow way." appears to be an uncited opinion. Should it be deleted? ~~~~

"Hollywood is a synonym encompassing all the definitions of 'glamor', 'beauty', 'fame', 'sex', and 'power' in a shallow way." appears to be an uncited opinion. Should it be deleted? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 21:48, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Ellen DeGeneres

2008-04-02T01:46:43Z

Adg2011:

'''Ellen DeGeneres''' is an American actress, stand-up comedian, and host of the syndicated talk show ''The Ellen DeGeneres Show''. She first reached success with her own sitcom called ''These Friends of Mine'', later renamed ''Ellen'' (1994-98).
The ABC show had difficulty finding a formula to bring in a large audience, having frequent cast changes. While not a ratings hit, it did do well enough to be renewed for 4 seasons.

Ellen made her [[homosexuality]] public on The [[Oprah Winfrey Show]] in February 1997, surprising few people. The resulting media attention highlighting this event (including being put on the front cover of [[Time magazine]]) caused a stir. Subsequently her character on the sitcom literally came out of the closet in April of that same year; admitting she was gay to her therapist (portrayed by Oprah Winfrey). After a great deal of media attention highlighting the outing episode, entitled "The Puppy Episode," the showing was the highest-rated episode of the sitcom. But the bounce proved to be short lived. The show became a constant weekly refrain of lesbian themes and viewers stopped watching rather quickly. Even Chastity Bono, the media director of GLAAD, a homosexual group, criticized the show for going over the top on the gay issue.<ref>http://www.planetout.com/entertainment/news/?sernum=544</ref> After the ratings rapidly declined, the show was canceled.

DeGeneres later returned to the stand-up comedy circuit. She had another stab at a sitcom on network television in 2001, ''The Ellen Show''. By this time DeGeneres diversified away from a constant gay theme, but the show failed to catch on with viewers and was canceled in its first season. She would later re-establish herself as a successful talk show host starting in 2003 with ''The Ellen DeGeneres Show''. Her talk show is still on the air, and its ratings are swelling constantly http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117935271.html?categoryid=1275&cs=1 In 2007 she hosted the 79th [[Academy Awards]].

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:DeGeneres, Ellen}}

[[Category: Broadcasters]]
[[Category:American Actresses]]
[[Category:Comedians]]

Ellen DeGeneres

2008-04-02T01:46:09Z

Adg2011:

'''Ellen DeGeneres''' is an American actress, stand-up comedian, and host of the syndicated talk show ''The Ellen DeGeneres Show''. She first reached success with her own sitcom called ''These Friends of Mine'', later renamed ''Ellen'' (1994-98).
The ABC show had difficulty finding a formula to bring in a large audience, having frequent cast changes. While not a ratings hit, it did do well enough to be renewed for 4 seasons.

Ellen made her [[homosexuality]] public on The [[Oprah Winfrey Show]] in February 1997, surprising few people. The resulting media attention highlighting this event (including being put on the front cover of [[Time magazine]]) caused a stir. Subsequently her character on the sitcom literally came out of the closet in April of that same year; admitting she was gay to her therapist (portrayed by Oprah Winfrey). After a great deal of media attention highlighting the outing episode, entitled "The Puppy Episode," the showing was the highest-rated episode of the sitcom. But the bounce proved to be short lived. The show became a constant weekly refrain of lesbian themes and viewers stopped watching rather quickly. Even Chastity Bono, the media director of GLAAD, a homosexual group, criticized the show for going over the top on the gay issue.<ref>http://www.planetout.com/entertainment/news/?sernum=544</ref> After the ratings rapidly declined, the show was canceled.

DeGeneres later returned to the stand-up comedy circuit. She had another stab at a sitcom on network television in 2001, ''The Ellen Show''. By this time DeGeneres diversified away from a constant gay theme, but the show failed to catch on with viewers and was canceled in its first season. She would later re-establish herself as a successful talk show host starting in 2003 with ''The Ellen DeGeneres Show''. Her talk show is still on the air, and its ratings are swelling constantly <ref> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117935271.html?categoryid=1275&cs=1<ref> In 2007 she hosted the 79th [[Academy Awards]].

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:DeGeneres, Ellen}}

[[Category: Broadcasters]]
[[Category:American Actresses]]
[[Category:Comedians]]

Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 1

2008-04-02T01:43:36Z

Adg2011: /* Darwin-Wife Relationship */

== Shooting Darwin Down ==

someone who can write better than me should put this theory in the darwin, evolution, intelligent design and irreducible complexity pages 

[http://www.videosift.com/video/Peanut-Butter-The-Atheists-Nightmare|The Athiest's Nightmare]

--[[User:Thurston|Thurston]] 21:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You ''can't'' be serious. I think that I may have lost an IQ point or two after watching that drivel. Is this from the same people who tried to put forth the ''domesticated'' banana as a disproof of evolution? --[[User:M|M]] 20:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
----

This article is heavily weighted toward a discussion of Darwin's struggle with religious faith with comparatively little discussion of those things for which he is principally of interest.

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--[[User:Eldepeche|Eldepeche]] 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

== More deletions ==

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --[[User:David R|David R]] 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.
:Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It was there when I edited it, so I included it with my stuff, but noted that it is only a rumor. But further research shows it is totally untrue, so I took it out of my second edit. There are plenty of facts about Darwin and Darwinsim that demonstrate its a sham - why not put them in its place? I mean, Darwinism is full of lies, lets not sink to their level, ok?

No joke. This is completely refuted. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:50, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

----
===Religious Views===

I have completely revamped the '''Religious Beliefs''' section. I urge everyone to compare what I wrote with the previous counterfactual drivel.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 17:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Read a credible biography for once. He did not intend to abrogate Christianity, nor did he give it up after his voyage.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
: Oops, I stand corrected. He did give up Christianity, but only after his daughter's death. Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You are ignorant to say Janet Browne is not credible. She is the most acclaimed Darwin biographer, as are Desmond & Moore and John van Wyhe. These are the big four (and all of them are evolutionists). Browne is Professor of the History of Biology. Your implied snipe at Browne is because the fact she produced is at odds with your subjective view of Darwin. You also failed to understand that Darwin's harsh dismissal of the Bible, God and Christianity in his ''Autobiography'' is dated to be speaking of the years 1836 to 1839. Read Barlow 1958:85 who retained the dating as established by Francis Darwin, original editor of his Father's autobiography (1887). Also, you have erred concerning Desmond & Moore. They said what was left of Darwin's faith (in 1851) was extinguished by the death of Annie. They did not say Darwin was a full blown Christian who lost his faith when Annie died. The context was "whatever was left" after the late 1830s apostasy. Regardless, all my claims are supported by mainstream scholars and whatever happened in 1851 means Darwin was a hardened atheist eight years later when he wrote and published ''Origin of Species'' (1859). By the way I own every book mentioned in the References.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 19:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Missed my "you were right" comment I added, buddy.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

False Information in Article

Ernst Mayr, 1991 ''One Long Argument'' page 75 says Darwin became an Atheist and not an Agnostic. I own a copy of the book. The article as it now sits is wrong.

According to the ''Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition'' "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, ten years after ''Origin of Species'' was published.

Ray Martinez

PS: In fact, the entire Religious Views section looks like it was written by an evolutionist attempting to cover Darwin's atheism. I thought this was Conservapedia and not Wikipedia?

The section in question is totally wrong, illogical and written out of context.

Let me know if you want the truth written.

RM

----

I have edited the ''Religious Views'' section in the article. Mayr said "Atheist" and not "Agnostic" on page 75 of his book. I also erased a paragraph beneath the Atheist fact that contradicted blatantly said fact with out of context and unreferenced assertions. I also erased a paragraph about Darwin's family being connected to Ben Franklin. If someone wants to re-edit the article and place it elsewhere then fine, but it does not belong in the ''Religious Views'' section of article.

When Darwin denied being an Atheist in 1879 he was speaking in a private letter to a person that is assumed to be a believer. In the 19th century England, atheists were highly discriminated against. Darwin always avoided the label in order to evade the negative stigma. We know he was an Atheist based on his theories that deny God had any part in producing reality, and because common ancestry by evolution flatly contradicts what God has said in Genesis.

Ray Martinez 6-12-07

: Superb comments, Ray. Please edit it further. I just removed some of the liberal bias based after being alerted by your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry for the bias - that was me - it was accidental.

Ray Martinez 6-12-06

: Ray, I have to disagree with your reasoning for why we know Darwin was atheist, or at the very least with your usage of the term. I'm an atheist myself, and if you you look up the term in a dictionary, it's quite clear: atheists do not believe and any god or gods. While Darwin's theories prove he rejected a lot of major Christian beliefs, that does not nessecarily prove he completely rejected the existance of God (or a god, at least). I think agnostic would be a better term to use. [[user:Catgirlthecrazy]] - 12:50, 28 June

----
::::Ray, you asked me to intervene. Can you quote verbatim Ernst Mayr stating that Darwin was a atheist? Secondly, it seems to me as if this material has more historical immediacy in that it claims Darwin preferred to be called an agnostic and I cite footnote 30 from a AIG article: "In 1881, at a meeting with Edward Aveling (Karl Marx's son-in-law) and Ludwig Büchner, Darwin said he preferred to be called an agnostic. Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 286." [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/slide.asp] Now Thomas Huxley appeared to have coined the term "agnosticism". [http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/origins.htm] Thomas Huxley was a contemporary of Darwin so it appears as if Darwin could have called himself an agnostic. Any comments Ray? I am open for discussion on this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:14, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::It appears as if Ray used this reference to claim that Darwin was an atheist: Ernst Mayr, One Long Argument 1991:75 Ernst Mayr was a Harvard biologist and is a prominent figure in the history of the evolutionary theory. Perhaps Mayr suspects that Darwin was a closet atheist due to the social stigma of proclaiming yourself an atheist that someone wrote above existed in Victorian England. I was hoping that Ray would provide me a quote from Mayr's work but I don't think that will happen as I was told he was banned and that he has no further interest in Conservapedia. If anyone wants to look this up it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:44, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

----

==Reply to Conservative==

'''Dear Conservative:''' I think you should review your own comments about Charles Darwin that appear on the Internet. Your flip flopping is atrocious. When Darwin said he preferred to be called an Agnostic the context was to avoid the negative stigma of Atheism in the 19th century. He was admitting Atheism but wanting to be called Agnostic for the reason just explained. It is a mystery that you suddenly do not understand this? If you have forgotten what you have said about Darwin in the past let me know and I will gladly post your previous opinions on your talk page.

In addition: Why do you suddenly doubt that Mayr said Darwin was an Atheist? Before, you had no doubt, now you are saying Mayr never said it. It is up to you to disprove if you disagree. Mayr 1991:75 says Darwin was an Atheist before the late 1830s.

Why has your good Fundamentalist buddy Moderator used the ultra-liberal "Religious Tolerance" web site to claim Darwin an Agnostic but you do not challenge this unscholarly source? Why does the Darwin article say he was an Agnostic using Mayr (who did not say Agnostic but Atheist) and not the liberal web page? As it sits now many Moderators know of this false information in article and have not changed it!

What is apparent is that you have made some serious mistakes and cannot simply admit it without making intelligence insulting excuses.

RM 2-7-07

----

REPLY TO Ray:

Ray, I saw today that you are back at Conservapedia. I understand that you and TK (the Sysop/Admin) are battling regarding the Darwin atheist/agnostic issue. I wanted you to provide the Mayr quote so we could say in the Darwin article that the Prominent evolutionist and Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr said ".........................." and provide the footnote so this way TK could not easily dispute the matter. I do believe that Conservapedia should be rule based and that material pointing to Darwin being a closet atheist should not be squelched out of a conservative encyclopedia merely because a Sysop/Admin (namely TK) doesn't like the material. As far as me saying Mayr never said Darwin was a atheist I merely asked for a quote so this way the whole TK vs Ray issue could be diffused. As far as me believing that Darwin was an atheist earlier, I think we should set aside this issue of what I believed or disbelieved and focus on factual matters in regards to issue at hand and that is: Was Darwin an atheist or a agnostic.

'''I believe the case is extremely stronger for Darwin being a closet atheist who at times found it hard to maintain atheistic thinking than for Darwin being a agnostic.''' I say this based on what I strongly suspect Mayr said {which I wish you would provide a small quote for if possible) and the following material regarding Darwin which I read today:

"Ernst Mayr’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’ [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877]

I also cite a review of a book written in the British Journal for the Philosophy (Volume 47,1996, page 641) saying: "I have no doubt that Darwin was a materialist and mechanist...." [http://www.jstor.org/view/00070882/ap020188/02a00130/1?frame=noframe&userID=80cdbf39@buffalo.edu/01cce4405c00501c2c38a&dpi=3&config=jstor]

I also cite this material from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:56, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Of course we know Darwin was a Materialist (= Atheist). I could provide these comments right from Darwin's own mouth (as you have). I wonder why the "most knowledgeable" TK has hand-waved Darwin the materialist away in favor of a liberal web page?

Mayr 1991:75 "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus.... but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' more or less = atheist"

OR: "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist)" Ernst Mayr ''American Scientist'' May 1977 p. 323

That is the exact quote.

You are a Mod, why don't you revert the article back to the way Andy and I had it?

This is Conservapedia and not atheist-Wikipedia protecting a flaming Atheist like Charles Darwin. How could anyone who banished God think he was not an Atheist? THIS IS RHETORICAL.

Ray 7-2-07

: In the 1600s, the common idea was that angels pushed planets as they orbited the Earth. Kepler provided the means for a materialistic description for the motion of the planets. Newton got the math down for it. That said, Kepler was Lutheran. Newton is a bit tougher to classify (he did write "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.") The point that I am attempting to make is that removing God from natural phenomena does not make one an atheist... unless you still want to believe that the angels push the planets around as they orbit the Earth. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:42, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::Your point defies logic: removing God is atheistic. Your commentary attempting to support your "logic" is a straw man. If Kepler was a genuine Lutheran he would not remove God; therefore Kepler (assuming he was as you say) feigned to be a Lutheran.

::Ray 7-2-07

::::Dear Ray, I think you will be most pleased with how I edited the [[Charles Darwin]] article just now. I am sorry I was not more attentive to this situation earlier. I was working on the [[Theory of evolution]] and [[Origin of life]] articles and I put this on the back burner. Our origin of life material was quite deficient and I wanted to improve it as fast as possible. I do wish to sincerely offer my apologies. I also wish to state that I believe you may have misunderstood what I wrote about Darwin in regards to his beliefs but perhaps not but I think we should set that aside but please feel free to write to me about this privately. I also wish to thank you for letting me know about this Darwin/materialist matter as I was not aware of it earlier. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You are suggesting that if there are two theories, one that invokes God as the reason, the other that invokes a materialistic reason it is the one that invokes God that is correct - or to suggest that the materialistic one is correct is atheistic? The inquiry of how the universe works and marveling it its beauty and intricate and subtle laws is not inherently an atheistic pursuit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== I created an article at another website ==

I created an article at another website:

[[Darwin's illness]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you think his illness was just a punishment from God? There are a lot of people who think so since Darwin turned so many people against The Almighty. Should we add that to the article? [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

* Your question solicits opinion, not fact. Can it be conclusively demonstrated that his illness was Divine punishment? If not, I would say leave it out. Unless it's proven, it doesn't matter how many people think this or that about it. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== A note on Darwin ==

He never stated that his theory of species evolution should be applied to humans. If you read the last sentence of "The Origin of Species" he says something to the effect of "this could apply to humans, but I don't see how and frankly I'm not convinced" so stop blaming him.

However, in the later book "the Descent of Man" he DID apply it to humans.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 17:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== The footnotes are messed up. I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know. ==

The footnotes are messed up. I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

==More advanced then women?==

I can't find that phrase in Decent of Man is their a citation for this? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Revamp the article? ==

It seems a little odd to me that the section on Darwin's religious beliefs dwarfs the rest of it...--[[User:M|M]] 17:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== A naturalist is a kind of biologist... ==
...so Darwin belongs in ''both'' categories.
"1. One versed in natural history, especially in zoology or botany." [http://www.bartleby.com/61/4/N0030400.html] [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:07, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== religioustolerance.org==
Per discussions with User:Conservative, the link to religioustolerance.org is a decidely [[leftist]] and anti-Christion site. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Conservative&diff=prev&oldid=192253#religioustolerance.org][http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RobS/archive3#I_dislike_the_lefty_religioustolerance_site_too_but....] An article in the ''National Review'' [http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp] says this of religioustolerance.org,

:"a number of Lefty sites that link to the following description of Dominionism at religioustolerance.org. This description includes the claim that Dominionists “advocate genocide for followers of minority groups and non-conforming members of their own religion.” I’m not sure this is accurate, even for the minuscule number of actual Dominionists. But the disturbing thing is the way this and other Left-leaning sites use logical sleight-of-hand to tar ordinary evangelicals with the madcap musings of a few fevered “Dominionists.”"

Citations to this website have already been removed from the [[Creationism]] article.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Creationism&diff=prev&oldid=192474] Religioustolerance.org is not an appropriate cite we should be linking to. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:34, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

:: Why did a Conservapedia Mod use this site to begin with? Are we to believe he did not know? The article now says that Mayr said Darwin was an Agnostic when Mayr said Atheist. Why hasn't the Mod who reverted back to Agnostic not used the web page? The article gives the false impression that Mayr said Darwin was Agnostic. I find it hard to believe that the Mod who used the liberal web site forgot to change his source to that site instead of Mayr.

::Ray Martinez 2-7-07

:::All sources I've read say he was an atheist. In fact, reading personal quotes on "Christianity" and "the Judeo-Christian God" in [[Jacques Barzun]]'s book, the man sounds just like [[Adolf Hitler]] in ''Hitler's Table Talk''. Please feel free to make the correction. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I have unproteced the page so someone can make the correction. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: What about Andy? I was under the impression that he was deciding? But I do want to thank you for your help and objectivity - thanks! I will make the edit as soon as you reply to this - thanks.

:::Ray 7-2-07

----

===New Edit===

Has many errors.

How can anyone think that the article is well written?

Ray 7-2-07

::I have made a newer edit. I did this because certain Moderators seemed to approve that a new edit was in order.

::Ray 7-2-07
==YOUR EDIT WAS NEGATED==

We identified and made the edit of Charles Darwin being an Atheist here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Charles_Darwin&diff=195878&oldid=195864]

Our source was Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr ''One Long Argument'' 1991:75

Now, one of your own Moderators (a "closet" Darwinist) has changed the article[http://www.conservapedia.com/Charles_Darwin] to say Darwin was an Agnostic using a liberal web page source run by Atheists and Darwinists who happen to own a clerical collar. But this same Moderator, when he reverted the edit, kept the Mayr source which does not say Darwin was an Agnostic but an Atheist. The liberal web page source is this page:[http://www.religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm] It includes Atheists and Wiccans as deciding what Christianity is and is not.

Why has this Moderator changed the article to say Darwin was Agnostic but retains Mayr as a source? Why has he not used his original web page source?[http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm]

You already agreed that the Agnostic label was obviously false and agreed with my reasoning here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Charles_Darwin]

Ray Martinez:
:"I have edited the Religious Views section in the article. Mayr said "Atheist" and not "Agnostic" on page 75 of his book. I also erased a paragraph beneath the Atheist fact that contradicted blatantly said fact with out of context and unreferenced assertions. (SNIP irrelevant material)

:When Darwin denied being an Atheist in 1879 he was speaking in a private letter to a person that is assumed to be a believer. In the 19th century England, atheists were highly discriminated against. Darwin always avoided the label in order to evade the negative stigma. We know he was an Atheist based on his theories that deny God had any part in producing reality, and because common ancestry by evolution flatly contradicts what God has said in Genesis."

Andy A. responds:
:"Superb comments, Ray. Please edit it further. I just removed some of the liberal bias based after being alerted by your comments."--Aschlafly 11:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, '''ten years after ''Origin of Species'' was published.''' "Agnostic" was only invented to give Atheists safe harbor; an attempt to recast themselves hoping their silly opinions and anti-God theories from being dismissed by someone pointing out their Atheism (which in the case of Darwin is most obvious).

Wikipedia says Darwin was an Agnostic. I was under the impression that Conservapedia exists to erase their untruthful bias?

Charles Darwin:
:"We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World" ''Descent of Man'' 1871:389 Vol.2

Genesis 2:7
:"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Ray Martinez 7-2-07

: Very interesting Ray. I didn't know that [[agnostic]] is a modern term! Please give me some time to consider all this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:03, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks, Andy. If you want additional scholars (not web pages) identifying Darwin an Atheist let me know. I can supply three big name scholars.

::RM 7-2-07

:::Can you erase this uncalled for comment here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Charles_Darwin&action=history] calling me a "lunatic vandal" for reverting the Agnostic edit back to Atheist? Since you had also made the edit it implies that anyone making the Atheist edit is a "lunatic vandal"?

:::Ray M. 7-2-07

*Ray Martinez, you are a fabricator, and your continued posts making things up boarder on the trollish. You claimed that DanH and myself were vandals on Conservative's talk page, for our edits here. Two Sysops. I have now blocked you for one week for name calling. You have no special license here, and although your contributions are appreciated, I urge you to steer clear of inflammatory charges and vindictive rhetoric, as has Conservative. No matter what the editors qualifications, that does not allow them to flaunt the rules. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:35, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you are linking to religioustolerance.org, a highly partisan and bigotted source. This is the sort of source [[Scientologist]]s use to support claims. I do not believe CP should give this anti-Christian source any credence whatsoever. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

*You may present your evidence, privately, via the usual methods, Rob. Until then, it remains merely one editors opinion, of which there could be thousands of citations on this site we both would disagree about, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:13, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:Ray Martinez has a subject knowledge specialty, but appears not an experienced wiki user. Rather than working with hime to help him learn how a wiki works and develop as an editor, you appear to be insisting on inserting an extreme partisan [[leftist]] and bigotted website as a source to support you view. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:06, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
::I have some concerns about Ray as an editor. [http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/7a98f643ae2af6bc?dmode=source Here] he calls Philip Rayment and TK "fundy morons" and says that Christians are "unfaithful ***holes." It doesn't seem he has the best interests of the project at heart. [[User:NonXtianConservative|NonXtianConservative]] 21:14, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Geez, those words could have been spoken by one of our. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

*But his inflamatory remarks, many of them, were posted way before any Sysop here, other than Conservative, asked him to tone it down, Rob. That's the point. And when he was blocked for a brief few hours for it, he came back spouting more. And, are you saying anyone, even a sysop, hurtling an insult, even one made in the edit notes, that makes it okay for a user to come back with more? That two wrongs make a right? Interesting logic there. I ask that you please stop with the public insults and ridicule of other sysops publicly, as Andy has requested. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:29, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:*You've never presented any evidence where it occurred. And you've been asked several times now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

----

==NonXtianConservative==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:NonXtianConservative]

This person is an admitted liberal sock. Read him admission here:[http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/61f0be62fc7d90a3]

June 19, 2007

NonXtianConservative wrote:

> > As far as the sock puppet comment, I'm

> > not suggesting that you're a sock puppet, I'm rather admitting that I

> > am (in fact, I am several sock puppets at CP). It's rather fun to put

> > in all these seemingly conservative edits which are completely

> > ridiculous. I would imagine that probably 1/10 CP users are socks of

> > one form or another.

Ray Martinez reply:

> Why be a SP at CP if the edit is not true? What is the point?

NonXtianConservative responds:

"It's terribly amusing (and in some way incredibly disheartening) that
when an edit is made that represents such an extreme point of view
that it is latched onto as a beacon of objective thought by Schalfly
and his jack booted toadies. However, when a rational person looks at
the edit from outside they realize how crazy it actually sounds. The
CP crew is working hard to try and keep a fairly big tent, but when
the patina of objectivity is worn off the article to expose the
twisted logic and prejudice underneath it loses all credibility. This
is my goal."

Ray Martinez: Here we have the evidence that the above person admits to being several socks. If the link does not work suddenly it is because our double agent has erased it. But I have it saved on another site where it cannot be erased.

Ray 7-5-07

== Importance ==
I was hoping for a more concise explanation of why Darwin is important. An explanation of his theory and why he believed in it would have been more valuable than a lengthy discourse on his religious, or lack of religious, beliefs. As the Pope acknowledged today there is no doubt that evolution has much (some?) basis in scientific fact. Scientific support of the theory does not diminish the possibility of the existence of a greater being. My apologies to the Pope if I have misstated his position. Both Darwin’s Theory and the existence of a God can exist and be believed. We need to be able to have honest discussion about such important topics without becoming galvanized. A mind open to honest discussion is a benefit to all of society. {{unsigned|Baronmarbot}}
:Just picking up on your claim that evolution and god can both exist, you are correct, as long as you are not talking about the God described in the Bible. But as you are talking about the Pope and you are probably referring to Christianity, then you are incorrect; evolution contradicts the biblical account and cannot be reconciled with it. To take one example, the Bible describes the creation of everything up to to the arrival of man as occurring in six ordinary days, whereas evolution requires billions of years. Another example is that God created everything "very good", i.e. without mistakes, defects, diseases, etc. Yet evolution has suffering, disease, and death as necessary components before you can have mankind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:40, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Charles Darwin married his cousin ==

Yes, Emma Darwin (the woman he married) was his first cousin. Out of the ten children they concieved three died due to inbreeding. [http://www.darwin-literature.com/] [http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/darwin.htm]

I'm rather suprised that this hasn't been adding to the article yet, even the liberal Darwin lovers at Wikipedia have mentioned it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Darwin.27s_children]

I would add it myself but this article is protected.

--[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 14:16, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:Lots of famous men have done ''risque'' things like marrying a cousin ([[Poe]]), a minor ([[Edison]]), or a former foster child ([[Woody Allen]]. Should we make a page filled with juicy gossip about them, for all the wowsers out there? Pant, drool . . . ;-) {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}

*This is all moronic. It was common practice, and totally acceptable in that period to marry one's cousin. Goodness! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? Of course, since the user was blocked as a common vandal, not surprising. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:57, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

==Note about Grammar==
Just to let everyone now - typically references (i.e. [1]) go outside punctuation (i.e. '''this:''' <code>blah,[1]</code> '''not this:''' <code>blah[1],</code>)
So if anyone gets a chance it'd be nice to fix that up. Regards, --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:00, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:It seems this is more attack tract than informative article. When the POV colors ever fact or non fact inserted here, it defeats the pupose of saying this is a reference work. Maybe "Essay" should be added to the top of it? --[[User:MattM|MattM]] 22:25, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
:::You merely said "it seems" and cited no support for your contentions. Rather a weak defense of your position, wasn't it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== Darwin-Wife Relationship ==

How is the judgemental representation of Darwin's correspondence to his wife relevent? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 21:43, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 1

2008-04-02T01:43:18Z

Adg2011: Darwin-Wife Relationship

User talk:HelpJazz

2008-04-02T01:41:03Z

Adg2011: Thank you

{| style="width: 100%; border: black solid 1px; background-color: lightgrey;"
|-
|{{Useful links|float=right}}<center><big>'''Guidelines for my talk page'''</big></center>
*Please, no "ping-pong" conversations: if I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page
*Sign your posts with four tildes, like this: '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>'''
*At the beginning of each month I will archive all conversations which are at least 1 month and 1 day from the most recent reply.
*Please, only one picture of Putin at a time. He scares me in large doses.
*'''If you have been blocked by me''': please do not create a sock and complain on this page! Instead, [[Special:Emailuser/HelpJazz|email me]] and we can work it out. (You will need a valid, verified e-mail address for this to work).
|}

Archives: [[/Sept07|>> Sep '07]] [[/Oct07|>> Oct '07]] [[/Nov07|>> Nov '07]] [[/Dec07|>> Dec '07]] [[/Jan08|>>Jan '08]]

== Superb Blocks and Unblocks ==

Superb blocks and unblocks last night!!! Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. It's a pity people like that feel the need to do what they do. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:27, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Bolding terms ==

HelpJazz, feel free to ask others, but I think the bolding of the key word in the entry is effective, as in [[deceit]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:I thought you were only supposed to bold it the first time, but if you like bolding it every time then I won't change any others. The manual of style doesn't really indicated either way. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:08, 22 February 2008 (EST)
:: The Manual of Style says to bold the first use. It doesn't explicitly say to ''not'' bold other uses, but that is the implication. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:19, 22 February 2008 (EST)

== Re ==

Oh come on, you know libertarian does not equal liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:31, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:''I'' do, very much so. It's a rather large pet peeve of mine, when people confuse the two. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Warning ==

Sarcasm in comments to edits will result in the blocking of an account, for obvious reasons. This is a high quality site and it will remain that way. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:I'm sorry. I was a little offended when you called me a liberal (twice), intimated that I wasn't smart enough to understand what you were writing, and then suggested that my claims of misunderstanding weren't credible.

:I probably should have held back the sarcasm but I've been sick lately (I slept for almost 30 straight hours Tues/Weds and had a high fever most of the time) and apparently don't have the restraint I usually do. I'll be going to bed soon; hopefully I'll be able to sleep off some more of this sickness and the grumpiness which comes with it. Good night. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:PS: Hopefully I'll get better by spring break; I'll have loads of free time for editing, and a lot of backed up class notes to convert to articles!

==I don't mean to be nosy==
Do you mind if I ask what school you go to? I know someone taking [[chemical engineering]] at Drexel, and it just sparked my interest when I saw you had the same major.--[[User:StevenM|Steve]] 20:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I go to [[Bucknell University]]. The logo's also on my user page :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:36, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==I can never get my head around it==

Why do people like you contribute here? I mean, people like you are honest, hardworking reliable persons who genuinely want to help out. But this place is little more than a hate site aimed at Liberals and Gays. Their Liberals and Homosexuality articles are the laughing stock of the Blogosphere. I'm a Moderately Conservative Blogger (I back mc Cain) and these ultra's make the rest of us look bad. Decent people like yourself are only an accessory to the broader betrayal of conservative principles, which these guys seem to parody every day with articles like [[Liberals and friendship]] or [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]] or [[Gay Bomb]]. Its absolutely amazing. [[User:McCain08|McCain08]] 13:29, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not really sure how to take that. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:59, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Maybe he doesn't fixate on only a few articles and views the project as a whole. HelpJazz has been an invaluable contributor and doesn't feel he has to but heads on every small point he may not agree with. We can all find things we may not like, but there is always a great deal of improvement that can be made in other areas. To reduce our site to a few offending articles and ignore the rest is petty and is hardly something that a conservative blogger would do. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:25, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

::I ''do'' know how to take that! Thanks Learn together :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:53, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Learn Together,

:I'm just interested to know what you would consider to be an alternative article I could assess as being trustworthy and encyclopedic? I've hit random page 10 times and I've got, [[Dirge]], [[Decency]], [[Statute of Anne]], [[Lemon test]], [[African Americans]], [[Jonah]], [[Easter]], [[Canadian deuterium uranium reactor]], [[Ocarina]], [[Brisbane]]. Most of them articles are very short, with only the African Americans article standing out but even that is puny by Wikipedia standards. This place, as you like to believe is not interested in developing these run of the mill, largely unpolitical articles. It is obsessed by using Liberals as a catchphrase at every turn. Your right, the majority of articles here are apolitical. But the issue is not how many slander and deface homosexuals and Liberals, but the mere presence of a derogatory and (what seems to me) parody article demeans the entire site and its mind baffling how even minded people could even consider using the site. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:22, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

McCain08's thesis boils down to the crazy idea that by opposing evil, we are betraying goodness. That hearkens back to the heresy that when Jesus said, "Judge not," he meant that Christians should never evaluate any doctrine or deed to whether it is good or bad. Actually, what he meant is to avoid [[hypocrisy]], which is "judging" without applying the standard of judgment to one's own self. This is the error that led to the downfall of TV preacher [[Jimmy Swaggart]] and NY governor [[Eliot Spitzer]].

In fact, it is liberals rather than conservatives who are guilty of this error. They constantly use [[double standard]] judgments, notably giving communists and dictators a pass - literally letting them get away with murder - while magnifying some relatively minor American crimes.

McCain08's comments appear hypocritical or simply pro-liberal when he accuses us of "slandering and defacing" homosexuals. Actually our [[Homosexuality]] article is factual and well deserves its top ten status in the blogosphere. It is rather the liberal media who slander Christians and Jews for standing up to the [[gay rights movement]]. It is rather liberal politicians who have made preaching the righteousness of the Bible a crime in some countries, and liberal administrations who have banned such preaching at many American universities.

Goodness must be trustworthy. To merit the world's trust, good people must expose evil - not only in others, of course (see [[hypocrisy]]), but all around. Confession is good for the soul! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:34, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Standing up to the gay rights movement? What are you standing up for? Really, put down Ann Coulter for a second and think for yourself.

Christ asks us not to look at the speck in our brothers eye when we haven't taken care of the plank in our own. This entire place is preachy, hypocritical and incredibly mean. Jesus would be weeping if he saw what his so called flock have produced.

Standing up to evil? Liberals are therefore evil? Homosexuals are therefore evil? And Liberals giving dictatorships a free pass... I'm sorry, where are you getting this nonsense? What is it that Bush said while campaigning in 2000 - 'I don't like going into another country and telling them how to do things our way' This was of course a response to the interventionist Gore, who advocated going into countries swarmed by civil strife. Clinton intervened in many countries (Though not enough in Rwanda) Read a book, ignoramus. [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 10:55, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:"[[Think for yourself]]" is a [[liberal code word]] for "reject wisdom merely because it comes from another person". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:59, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

And he ignores the rest... Typical tactic, ignore what someone else says, create new saying and somehow fit Liberal into every second sentance. Helpjazz, how can you continue to work with these people? [[User:Wearethefuture|Wearethefuture]] 11:25, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I didn't come here to argue or change minds. When I do interact with people, I do so in a kind and calm manner, instead of attacking that in which someone else believes. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:49, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

==Carter's mouth==

HJ, thanks for the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Negotiating_with_terrorists&diff=next&oldid=408189 permalink]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:17, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

IS there a place I can ask the community as a whole something?--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 17:50, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not exactly. For general things you might try [[talk:Main Page]], or for a specific issue you might want to try a related debate or article. There isn't really an announcement board, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:03, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::I have done so and I would like you to direct as many people as possible to it cause I need opinions. I would like you to comment as well. [[Talk:No Mercy (2007)|Here you go]].--'''''[[User:FellowChristian16|Fellow]][[User talk:FellowChristian16|Christian16]]''''' 18:40, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== Complaint, but then ... ==

HelpJazz, you complained about a lack of citations for [[abortion deceit]], but then did not help me fill in the citations. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
:It wasn't a complaint as much as a comment. I've been in and out all day, since I'm on a school trip, and haven't had a lot of time to search. I'm generally not good at finding cites for those sorts of claims anyway :-/ I'll see if I can dig anything up now that I'm back for the night..
:In general, I find it best if the person who put in the claim puts in his own cites. You obviously know more about it and better know where to find cites, whereas I would be starting from scratch. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:46, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Ron Paul ==

Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed he had because somebody had already removed him from the template itself. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:41, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
:Oh I didn't even notice that he was removed from the template. I think he's more or less given up so it's an easy mistake to make. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Hello! ==

Thanks for this:
PS: while "liberal" may mean "moderate" across the sea, "-4.00/-7.18" well... isn't ;-)
Quite true, and nicely phrased =)
I was thinking of changing some of that anyway, but it was night-time here. [[User:Europeanunion|Europeanunion]] 07:38, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, well, the two-axis scale is something in which I'm pretty proficient :) I really like your userboxes, by the way. And I actually agree with a lot of them! (I don't know my exact score off the top of my head, but I'm somehere in the bottom right quadrant on political compass). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:30, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== SofaZebra ==
Thank you thank you thank you.
Your's sincerely, [[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:43, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==[[Geology]]==

Help? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:11, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:I'm afraid I'm not sure what I can do. I know very little about geography (Christian or otherwise) and Philip's been studying creation science longer than I've been alive. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:23, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::Quite frankly there are statements in that article which make Conservapedia a laughing stock. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I didn't really read it. I'll give it a once-over and let you know what I think. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

I unprotected the article, and a quick glance shows nothing strange. I'd like Will to be more specific. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:58, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== "Libertarian" ==

Just face it, you are a conservative. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:19, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:As much as this destroys my street cred to say so, I differ in one essential area: I don't think that my conservatism should be pushed onto others through the coercive force of the government. If nothing else, you've got to admit that I at least have the lingo. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:21, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Ouch. You so have *zero* cred now. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Yeah. Can't get a street loan anymore :( [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:27, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Admit it Jazz, you is YEC. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Nope, just open minded and respectful of other people's beliefs :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:26, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for helping me find out how to put in a signature. I appreciate it!

Talk:Living Constitution

2008-04-02T01:26:13Z

Adg2011: New page: This article is misleading. I was taught that the phrase "Living Constitution" meant that the Constitution is alive in the sense that it can be amended, as the XIII and IXX amendments outl...

This article is misleading. I was taught that the phrase "Living Constitution" meant that the Constitution is alive in the sense that it can be amended, as the XIII and IXX amendments outlawed slavery and gave women the right to vote. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 21:26, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Anita Bryant

2008-04-02T01:22:25Z

Adg2011:

[[Image:AnitaB.jpg|right|thumb|Anita Bryant in 1977]]
'''Anita Bryant''' (b. 1940) was an extremely successful singer and commercial endorser who became an early opponent of [[homosexuality]]. As a result, the entertainment and corporate world ostracized her.

A devout [[Christian]] born and raised in [[Oklahoma]], Bryant won the prestigious talent competition of [[Arthur Godfrey]] at age 16, was runner-up in the [[Miss America]] competition at age 19, and next recorded three smash popular hit songs, of which a couple were imitated later by famous groups such as the [[Beatles]]. In the late 1960s and 1970s Anita Bryant became one of the most successful endorsers of goods, most famously Florida orange juice. She was as popular as any rock star today, and had such broad appeal that she performed the [[National Anthem]] at [[Super Bowl III]] in 1969 and "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" at the burial of former President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] in 1973.

Living in South Florida, Bryant saw [[Florida]]'s Dade County (now Miami-Dade County) pass an ordinance in 1977 granting anti-discrimination rights to homosexuals. Within four weeks, Bryant, along with supporters from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and the Florida Conservative Union, had collected 64,000 signatures, many more than the 10,000 needed to put the issue on the ballot. <ref>[http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-lianita04jun04,0,3085156.story?coll=sfla-news-front Exhibit marks 30th anniversary of how Anita Bryant fought -- and helped -- gay rights], By John Tanasychuk, ''South Florida Sun-Sentinel'', June 4 2007.</ref> The ordinance was successfully repealed in a referendum that passed in a landslide vote of 69% to 31%. She said her main concern was the recruitment of children into the homosexual lifestyle, and she founded a group called Save Our Children for that purpose. It was not until 1998 that Miami-Dade County reinstated the ordinance by a narrow 7-6 vote.

Bryant also successfully led a campaign for the Florida legislature to prohibit homosexuals from adopting children. Over two decades later, in 2004, that law was upheld by the [[Court of Appeals]] for the [[Eleventh Circuit]].<ref>''Lofton v. Sec'y of the Dep't of Children & Family Servs.'', 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004).</ref>

Homosexual advocates vilified Bryant for her stance, and continue to insult her to this day. They organized a boycott of her corporate sponsors and they obtained denunciations of Bryant by other entertainers. Four self-proclaimed homosexuals slapped Bryant with a pie in her face during a speaking event in Des Moines, Iowa.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS91gT3XT_A</ref> Bryant responded immediately by saying a prayer for her assailants. Police authorities refused to prosecute for the assault.

The efforts of the homosexual activists succeeded in destroying Bryant's career. The corporations refused to continue to hire her; the music industry excluded her. Subsequent attempts by Bryant to further her entertainment career in small towns were unsuccessful, and [[liberal]] [[newspaper]]s hound her about that also.<ref>http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2002/04/28/State/Bankruptcy__ill_will_.shtml</ref>

Homosexuals continue to attempt to discredit Anita Bryant as part of their current effort to repeal the Florida law against adoption by homosexual couples. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported that on March 25, 2007 a "meeting, organized by local, state and national gay advocacy groups, was held to discuss a proposal in Tallahassee to repeal Florida's 30-year-old ban on gay adoption. Organizers said the ban is a remnant of former beauty queen and orange juice spokeswoman Anita Bryant's anti-gay crusade of the 1970s."<ref>Elizabeth Baier, "Gay adoption of kids advocated at church: Gathering held to discuss state bill to repeal ban," South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale) (Mar. 26, 2007)</ref>

In a 1980s interview with Ladies Home Journal, she renounced her previous anti-gay views and said she now has more of a "live and let live" attitude. <ref>Cliff Jahr, "Anita Bryant's Startling Reversal", Ladies Home Journal 97 (December 1980), 60-68.</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bryant, Anita}}

[[Category:Religious people]]
[[Category:Women Singers]]
[[Category:Political people]]

Talk:The Da Vinci Code

2008-04-02T01:11:43Z

Adg2011: Fictional

== Duplication ==

We seem to have dupliacte articles on this topic, one here and one at [[Da vinci code]]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Which one should be deleted in your opinion: Da vinci code or The Da Vinci Code? The first option is the best title, but the second one has a better setup. The text looks as if it has been copied exactly. I could delete the first one and move the second to its title. Let me know what you think. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

: "Da vinci code" is clearly wrong. "The Da Vinci Code" is better. I'm not sure we need such a long article on the topic at all though. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ok, then would you like me to do the opposite with the two articles: delete the second one and move the first to its title? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Well-written, well-illustrated article ==

Wikipedia has a process for nominating "featured articles" (the ones that get featured each day on the main page).... if this were WIkipedia I'd think it was time to start the discussion process for this one. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:20, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:Are you serious? This is one of the most polarized articles on the entire site, if anything the sections attempted to disprove the book should be deleted. It's hardly encyclopedia material. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 23:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This article on a work of fiction is signifantly larger than the article on Jesus. I don't feel proficient to add to Jesus or reduce this one, but if you're looking for credibility this needs to be addressed one way or the other. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 09:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Srsly ==

PROTIP: Don't try to disprove fictional novels.[http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780385504201]

FICTION, people. Just because it encorporates some history and is well-written, that does not make it real or even attempting to be real. [http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html]

If you read these links and still take this book seriously, you are probably more concerned with the validity of your religion than Dan Brown himself. Srsly.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 22:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fictional ==

The author designates the book as fiction with the subtitle "A Novel." Opinions? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 21:11, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Statue of Liberty

2008-04-02T01:09:25Z

Adg2011:

How can the Statue not have anything to do with immigration with statement like that? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 21:09, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Statue of Liberty

2008-04-02T01:09:15Z

Adg2011: New page: How can the Statue not have anything to do with immigration with statement like that?

How can the Statue not have anything to do with immigration with statement like that?

Talk:Homeschooling

2008-04-02T00:55:09Z

Adg2011: Opinions

[[/archive 1|Archive 1]] (20th March 2008)

==Snipping George Bernard Shaw and Mark Twain==
I'm removing

*[[George Bernard Shaw]]
*[[Mark Twain]]

Both men had complex opinions that varied during the course of their lives, but calling them "Christian" is a stretch. My reasons for excluding Shaw are given above. As for Mark Twain, he did write a sympathetic book about Joan of Arc. However, his writings are replete with sarcastic and dismissive remarks about organized religion. He refused to let "Letters from the Earth" be published until after his death. In Mark Twain's Letters, we read:

:From a gentleman in Buffalo Clemens one day received a letter inclosing an incompleted list of the world's "One Hundred Greatest Men," men who had exerted "the largest visible influence on the life and activities of the race." The writer asked that Mark Twain examine the list and suggest names, adding "would you include Jesus, as the founder of Christianity, in the list?" To the list of statesmen Clemens added the name of Thomas Paine; to the list of inventors, Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The question he answered in detail.

Twain's answer was that if the compiler of the list added Jesus, he should also add Satan: "From A.D. 350 to A.D. 1850 these gentlemen exercised a vaster influence over a fifth part of the human race than was exercised over that fraction of the race by all other influences combined. Ninety-nine hundredths of this influence proceeded from Satan, the remaining fraction of it from Jesus."

Twain has been labelled "deist," "agnostic," and "atheist." Gary Sloan suggests ([http://www.writerscramp.ca/archives/mark_twain.htm Mark Twain's Covert War with his Maker]) that he believed in a ''malignant'' God, and says "Viewing Satan as a heroic rebel against the real Archfiend, Twain came to identify with the fallen cherub and often used him as a mouthpiece." Perhaps his views were so complex that he was all of these things and a Christian at the same time, but he was certainly not a Christian as the term is ordinarily meant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:But if they were homeschooled, shouldn't they be in the "other" section of the list? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Sure. That section didn't exist when I removed them; it was a single list of Christians. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Doing. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The part on Mark Twain doesn't even discuss him being homeschooled, only him completing five grades of school. Also the majority of the people on the list were born before state sponsored public schooling. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 22:56, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

: You're in the wrong place if you want to censor information from the page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:09, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Marx, Himmler, Oscar Wilde... ==

I would love to see a good, non-ideological reason as to why these names were eliminated from the list. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why is a non-ideological reason necessary? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Because if they were only deleted for ideological reasons that is an admission that the article is intentionally misleading. --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 20:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Well, this is an encyclopedia article about homeschooling, right? And a section of that article is dedicated to listing prominent persons who were homeschooled in one way or another, right? And a noted political/economic theorist, an important figure in the Nazi regime, and a great Irish writer all fit both parts of the prominent/homeschooled criteria for that list, so there is no reason to take them off the list...unless including them on the list somehow makes homeschooling look bad; in that case the removal is strictly ideological....which brings into question the intellectual honesty and integrity of the article, and thus the project writ large. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I undid the ideological deletion as it runs counter to Conservapedia's ethos of censorship of facts see [[Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia]], Item 9 - "Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules." [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 14:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:::DanH, so if you won't provide a non-ideological reason can you tell me why you blatantly go against the Conservapedia differences with Wikipedia? I always thought you seemed a reasonable guy. [[User:Brixham|Brixham]] 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:The removal was no less ideological than the inclusion of the names. I mean, Himmler? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:24, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

::Touché :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

:If they are to be put in, I would at the very least ask for a citation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Where are the citations that [[Karl Marx]] was homeschooled? I'll look further for them, but haven't found any yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Problems with this page ==

I think there are some major problems with this article; not in terms of the content being wildly inaccurate but rather being rather narrow in its focus. If you look at the opening line, it defines homeschool as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". That's problematic because for a start, because homeschooling is not a "movement" (at best, it's a subsection of the conservative movement) and it's definitely not isolated to the United States.

Furthermore, I think you're striving a little too hard to give homeschooling as much credit as possible. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against homeschooling. But at no stage in the article have you clearly and accurately defined what homeschooling is, because as I noted, the opening definition is extremely flawed. Consequently, when you get to someone like Charles Dickens, I reckon you're drawing a bit of a long bow. To take the Dickens example: as a history teacher, I feel that we should be quite clear that Charles Dickens was never formally homeschooled in the manner that the article implies and the fact that he didn't receive an education for much of his childhood had nothing to do with such things as "a different, often better, education environment with different, often better, opportunities" or "freedom from liberal and/or atheistic bias and culture in schools". To simplify things as much as possible, he ceased to have a formal education because his father was imprisoned for financial reasons. And I can tell you that his mother was no great believer in Dickens getting an education: she was the one that forced Dickens to work in a factory. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dickens received any active home education. Dickens is just one example of the wider problem with the entire article, in that you suffer from a poor definition which consequently makes many of the names that you list as "arguably homeschooled" look silly. Even under a solid definition of homeschooling, I don't think people such as Dickens qualify. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:36, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: PeterS, you may be an expert in history, but your logic does not follow. The entry does not care ''why'' someone was homeschooled in listing who was homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I think PeterS has a valid point, at least in his first line. As he points out, the article describes homeschooling as "a movement consisting of 1-2 million students in the United States". So for starters, how many on the list were homeschooled ''in the United States''? Clearly, however, homeschooling is not confined to the U.S., so it's the definition rather than the list that should be changed (as far as my argument goes so far).
:: I don't agree with him that it's not a movement; I think that's probably an apt term. But that raises the next problem with the list. Homeschooling ''as a movement'' is a relatively recent phenomenon, over the last forty years, I would guess. So anybody on that list who was educated at home more than around forty years ago does not fit the definition.
:: There's more that I could say, along the lines of PeterS' second paragraph, but perhaps I'll leave it there for the moment.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:14, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Similar to my comment below, this criticism is overly literal. But to play that game, "homeschooling" is the movement, while those who were "homeschooled" is a broader category that can go beyond the movement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: My immediate response to that, without thinking through it, is that that might make sense, but if it does, at the very least that distinction should be made clear in the article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Perhaps the opening part of the article could refer to a general, specific definition of homeschooling. That would clear up some of the conceptual difficulties that become more evident later in the article. '''Then''' you could branch out after that and comment on the "homeschooling movement" in the United States. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:46, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: An addendum to my previous post: I still think my dispute with the Dickens example stands. Just because someone does not receive a formal education at a school, it does not mean they were homeschooled. The facts are these: Dickens was educated as long as was financially possible. When his father was jailed, he was sent to work in a factory, like many financially disadvantaged young people at the time. To my knowledge (and the minutiae of the personal histories of English authors are not my strongest point), there is no evidence that his mother actively homeschooled him. Indeed, all the evidence points to his mother being firmly in favour of him working at a boot-blacking factory ''instead of'' getting an education. If you have evidential proof that this was not the case, feel free to cite it. Once again, if you think my argumentation over this is not valid, then you've got to sort out the definitional problem ASAP. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:58, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've reworded the introduction to:
* Remove the United States as part of the definition.
* To define homeschooling as being educated "primarily at home", rather than "outside the traditional school system", as the latter could include non-traditional schools. The existing text later in the article expands on "primarily at home", to explain the parts that are not at home.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:54, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

I've also changed references to homeschooling in the prominent people list to "educated at home" or "taught at home" (as some entries already were) for all persons whose education preceded the formation of the homeschooling movement. By the way, the entry for Leonardo doesn't actually say that he was taught at home. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:09, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

: Nobody uses the phrase "educated at home," Philip. Have you ever heard anyone use it? An encyclopedia should use common and easily understood terminology, first and foremost. "Homeschooled" is the term that is used. Also, I'm not aware of a category that is "outside the traditional school system" but not homeschooled. Homeschooling is not dependent on the ''physical location'', but on the approach. Again, I object to the overly literal and [[materialistic]] approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:50, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Regarding "educated at home"...
::* I'm not in the habit of noting down every phrase I hear, so in one sense I couldn't say whether I've ever heard it, but I would think that I ''have'' heard it.
::* That's apart from this article, which as I said, already used it, the phrase having been included by Dpbsmith ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=16849]), Hsmom ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151194], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=151212], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=155576], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=165607],[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=167430]), and NonXtianConservative ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=219041]).
::* Google returns 106,000 hits for "educated at home", so it's fairly common.
::* And even if none of that was the case, isn't Conservapedia proud of inventing [[Conservapedia terms|new terms]]?
:: "Homeschooled" is one of a number of terms that are used. Another is "taught at home", which was used by none other than one Aschlafly ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homeschooling&diff=next&oldid=218738])! I've used both those terms to avoid too much repetition.
:: And of course there is the ''reason'' I made those changes, that if homeschooling is defined (correctly, I believe) to be a movement that started in the 1960s, then anybody educated/taught/tutored at home prior to then cannot be said to be "homeschooled". That's not to say that their situation is necessarily quite different, but it does mean that the term itself should not be used of them.
:: "outside the traditional school system" depends on what is meant by "traditional". It could mean schools that allow the students to decide what they learn, for example, or other schools that take a non-traditional approach in any number of ways. It could include parent-controlled Christian schools, as ''traditionally'' schools have been controlled by governments or religious denominations. Yes, those examples are all schools, but they're not necessarily ''traditional'' schools.
:: If "homeschooling" is not dependent (to a fair extent) on the physical location, then why is it called "''home''schooling"? And if it's dependent on the approach, why is it not defined in terms of the approach? In any case, the previous definition was based on physical location, that being "outside ... schools".
:: How is my definition "overly literal"?
:: And how is is "materialistic"?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:53, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Philip, you say that "Google returns 106,000 hits for 'educated at home,' so it's fairly common." But that is only about 5% of the frequency of use of "homeschooled", which generates nearly 2 million hits on Google. So "educated at home" is not "fairly common" relative to its counterpart. It is also meaningless to define ''where'' someone is taught rather than focusing on the approach.

::: It is overly literal and materialistic to define homeschooling in terms of the physical location (e.g., at home) rather than the approach (e.g., parental control). Shall we next define [[Christian]]s based on where they pray? Of course not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Googling "homeschooled" without the quotes I get 1.6 million hits (which includes variations such as ''homeschooling'' and ''homeschool''). Googling "homeschooled ''with'' the quotes, I get 1.49 million hits. So the percentage is actually about 7. But I wasn't trying to claim that it's the most common use of the term. I was pointing out that your claim that "Nobody uses the phrase" is incorrect. If 7% is "nobody", then I guess nobody gets homeschooled, as the figure there is "only" 2%. But clearly 2% still amounts to a large figure, and 7% is also quite sufficient to say that the term is commonly used, even if "homeschooled" is considerably more common.
:::: As I said, the previous definition focused on "where" and "the physical location", except for it being a positive "at home" it was a negative "not at school". So my change did not change that the definition was location-based. However, the new definition that you've now provided is a good one, and I'm reasonably happy with that (it could be tweaked a bit. For example, it links to the American definition of 'public school' rather than the broader 'school').
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::Some thoughts - I use the term "educated at home" quite frequently, as it can include quite a number of educational approaches, only some of which I'd call "homeschooling". In some states in the USA, various terms have very specific meaning. As an example, in Pennsylvania, students can be "privately tutored", "receiving homebound instruction", "enrolled in a cyber-charter school", or "enrolled in a home education program". All four of these kinds of students are educated at home - that is, they get much of their education in their own home. Some folks call all four kinds "homeschooled". However, in two of these cases the students are public school students (educated at taxpayer expense, with school-provided curriculum). Many people would not consider this "homeschooling", at least in the traditional sense, especially as the parents have little say in the curriculum content, which has to meet state standards. Students can be "privately tutored" by their parent or a hired tutor - for various reasons, some would consider only the former to be "homeschooling". "Home education programs" create a broad umbrella which can encompas a variety of approaches. For example, home educated students can enroll in homeschool co-ops - essentially "schools for homeschoolers", and may actually do little if any of their learning in their own home. In some other states, no one is, legally speaking, homeschooling - they are all enrolled in private schools, some of which are so small as to have only students from a single family. With the rise of publicly-run and publicly-funded internet-based schools, people are being more careful about how they use the term "homeschooling". We do not want the general public to assume that anyone who is homeschooling is doing so at significant taxpayer expense, as that could result in an unacceptable level of government oversight and control, so we must be careful with our terminology. It's tricky stuff.
:::::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I think that the list of arguably homeschooled people stretches the definition of homeschooling beyond my recognition (as a homeschooling mom). [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] makes a good case that Dickens was not homeschooled (lack of education does not IMHO equal homeschooling, as discussed previously with George Washington Carver). I also think Joan of Arc was not homeschooled - her mother taught her prayers and household skills, as most mothers have taught their daughters for centuries, but there is no evidence she gave any academic instruction. But [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], it's your sandbox, so your say goes. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Read an interesting article ==

I generally don't follow "homeschooling politics" but I recently read an interesting article. Apparently CA has recently placed a de facto ban on homeschooling. Does that sound like something appropriate for this article? (It would be nice to have something not in list form.) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:The government of California has said they will not enforce it, but to have it on the books begs a time when the government may not be as friendly and could decide to crack down. They didn't allow homeschooling per se, but did it's equivalent by saying a special license was necessary to teach. Since homeschoolers score higher on standardized tests than their public school counterparts, it is especially troubling to see efforts made to curtail it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, Learn Together! I didn't read it from a primary source, I read it from someone who regurgitated it for me. They said that that they would require extensive training/licencing to be a homeschool teacher, which would essentially kill the movement. The article I read didn't say that CA wasn't going to enforce the ruling (because that would make for a significantly less interesting article for a libertarian newsletter!) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

== "Nearly every great mathematician" ==

Can I object to the statement that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled? It is patently ridiculous, even to a supporter of homeschooling. Here's just a few of the many famous mathematicians from the last few centuries who were not homeschooled: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, George Polya, Carl Friedrich Gauss, John Venn, several of the Bernoulli family, Pierre de Fermat and Johannes Kepler. Off the top of my head, August Möbius was homeschooled only to the age of 13, and some mathematicians were born into European aristocracy who would never even think of allowing their children to be taught in a normal education system, which at the time would have been grossly inferior. Less hyperbole, please! [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 21:00, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

: Fine, let's look at your examples, several of whom would not be described as "great mathematicians"; others in your list who were [[homeschooled]]; and still more who were schooled but achieved despite it. Spell out the schooling of each of your examples and you'll find that nearly all of them fall in one of the categories I just identified, and hence my reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That last category ("were schooled but achieved despite it") is of people who were ''not'' homeschooled. Correct? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:04, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Well, yes, you are literally correct, but figuratively that category reinforces the thesis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: How does "people who were educated in a regular shool and did well" (to rephrase it) support the thesis? (The phrase "despite it" presumes what the thesis is trying to demonstrate, so is a circular argument.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:19, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

::Right, so let's have a look at the first criterion. In other words, "several of whom would not be described as great mathematicians". Actually, I don't think that's my job. I think if you want to make a statement claiming that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled, you need to prove it. '''You''' need to identify exactly who you would classify as a "great mathematician" and name them all: or have you already done that? What are your criteria for great mathematicians? Then '''you''' need to identify what percentage of those were homeschooled. '''Then''' you can assert that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. Now: "others in your list who were homeschooled". Again, it's a meaningless statement because you have never defined exactly what constitutes a homeschooled person - how many years they need to have been homeschooled - and when people have asked on this talk page, you haven't answered. Next: "still more who were schooled but achieved despite it". Hmmm... so you're making the assumption that because they were high achievers but attended school, they must have achieved '''despite''' their education? And you're using that justify the contention that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Which means that those who achieved highly did so despite their education? Which means that homeschooling is better than a regular education? Where does the circular nature of that argument end? Can I reiterate: I think that homeschooling is great if people are prepared to do it, and I think that you personally have done a lot of good things in terms of homeschooling. But I don't think it helps our conservative cause if we make silly hyperbolic statements all over the place in a futile gesture to stick it up to the liberals/atheists. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 00:35, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: PeterS, our list of homeschoolers includes many of the greatest mathematicians. Please read it. Your list does not disprove the statement that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. I invited you to spell out the schooling of those in your list (as I have done for those homeschooled), but so far you've declined to do so. So your objection does not persuade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:53, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Andrew, I have read the list. But "many of the greatest mathematicians" is a different statement from "nearly every great mathematician". "Many" is completely different from "nearly every". "Many" is fairly uncontroversial, because it doesn't directly imply proportionality - it could mean a majority, or it could mean a sizeable minority, or it could mean some arbitrary proportion that you specify. "Nearly every" implies a sizeable majority, probably somewhere in the region of 90-95% - I'm being arbitrary here, but "nearly every" would, in the English language, be somewhere close to 100%. Now, until you can tell us what a "great mathematician" is, and list all those that you classify as great mathematicians, you cannot say that almost 100% of great mathematicians were homeschooled. If a student came to me with an essay saying something like "nearly every person killed in the Reign of Terror was an aristocrat", I would underline the statement, ask in the page margin for a citation of the number of people killed in the Terror, ask for a citation of the number of aristocrats killed in the Terror, and ask them to justify why that may have been the case (based on a historical interpretation). Your statement does not match any of these rather non-exhaustive criteria, and it'd be interesting if you could address this. On to the second part of your question: citations for my names. It should not be my job to find citations to help to prove or disprove your unproven statement. And I ask that before you try to pick apart my examples and set arbitrary criteria, you address what I've just said in this paragraph and my previous statements. But I'll do this anyway.
:::* '''Isaac Newton''' - accounts vary, but all acknowledge that he received a formal education in at least one school. According to this source, [http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/01-Courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm], he was educated at King's School, Grantham. According to this source, [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] he was educated at Free Grammar School, Grantham. Despite the inconsistency in the name, we can conclude that whichever school(s) he attended, he did attend school for most of his childhood. This source [http://www.skyscript.co.uk/newton.html] tells us that while he spent years out of school, he was not homeschooled during that time: indeed, it was felt that "he did not need an education". Without even requiring criteria, I think we can conclude that the development of Calculus is enough to make him a "great mathematician", not to mention these things called the laws of motion...
:::* '''Leonhard Euler''' - this source [http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Leonhard%20Euler] tells us that he went to a low quality school, but the fact stands: he attended school during that time, even if he self-taught and received tutoring at the same time. But even if you choose to disagree with my contention, it doesn't change my objections, noted in all my above comments. Anyway, Euler = great mathematician, no contest, even without criteria.
:::* '''George Pólya''' - [http://www.sci.uidaho.edu/polya/biography.htm] says it all. Again, criteria are a problem, because you have never specified any, but Pólya is one of the world's foremost modern contributors to mathematical logic and combinatorics through elements such as the Pólya enumeration theorem and his four principles of mathematical proofs/problem solving.
:::* '''Carl Friedrich Gauss''' - this source [http://www.mathsong.com/cfgauss/Dunnington/1927/] tells us that he was educated from the age of seven. Case closed. That page also details his mathematical achievements very well in areas such as number theory in particular.
:::* '''John Venn''' - [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Venn.html]: went straight through Cholmley's and Islington. End of story. As for being a great mathematician... ever used a Venn diagram?
:::* '''Bernoulli family''' - it is much more difficult to find evidence for the Bernoulli family - it is a pattern that people would either be taught at home or sent to a local school before moving onto more prestigious pursuits in secondary school or university. Obviously it's difficult to be consistent in researching across a cross-generational family. I'll gladly ignore this one.
:::* '''Pierre de Fermat''' - he self-taught mathematics [http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Fermat-e.htm], but that came once he had already studied jurisprudence at university and become a councillor. This source [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html] tells us that he did indeed receive a primary and secondary education. This source confirms that he was probably schooled at a Franciscan monastery [http://www.qerhs.k12.nf.ca/projects/physics/fermat.html]. And he was great; no matter what criteria you set.
:::* '''Johannes Kepler''' - this source [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Kepler.html] tells us that although he helped in his grandfather's inn, he attended a local school and then a seminary. Kepler did of course achieve extraordinary things in astronomy, physics and mathematics including things such as positing the Kepler conjecture (which will probably become a theorem).
:::{{unsigned|PeterS}}

:: OK, your list of great mathematicians who were not homeschooled is dwindling fast. Working backwards, Kepler evidently was educated while helped at his relative's inn, and he isn't considered a great mathematician anyway. Fermat was self-taught in mathematics. The Bernouilli family almost certainly handed down their expertise through homeschooling, and you've conceded dropping them. Venn was not a great mathematician.

:: We're left with only four: Newton, Euler, Polya, and Gauss. I'll check them out now. It may be that a few of them were not homeschooled, which is why the claim is not that every great mathematician was homeschooled, but that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled. But I'm curious to investigate the education of these four.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Newton apparently did not attend school until age 10, making him another homeschooler. [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Newton.html] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::The fact that Newton did not attend school until the age of 10 does not make him a homeschooler. Indeed the source you cited says nothing about what his education was before Free Grammar School, if he had one. A homeschooling education seems unlikely, as the source says that Newton's grandfather, whom he was living with, practically ignored Newton, and that Newton hated his mother and step-father. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 23:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Andrew Schlafly, you claim to be an expert in everything yet you are totally incapable of answering a simple request of another person is only trying to improve your encyclopaedia. I have spent several screenfuls of this discussion page trying to ask you two '''very simple questions''', which shouldn't be too difficult whether the answerer is homeschooled or not. (1) '''What is your definition of a great mathematician?''' and (2) '''What exactly constitutes homeschooling?''' Your page does neither. Under your (highly elusive) criteria, spending a couple of years at home while of primary school age is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, receiving private tutoring while simultaneously attending school daily is sufficient to qualify as homeschooling. Under your criteria, a mathematician is great only if you say so, because under your criteria, Johannes Kepler and John Venn cease to become a great mathematician. Schlafly, this encyclopaedia will only live up to its name - Conservapedia - when it becomes an accurate reflection of a conservative viewpoint. At the moment, its Schlaflipedia: if you don't want to answer a reasonable question, you block your ears. That's also why you lock Conservapedia from editing when there aren't sysops around to jump on people who are trying to improve articles. You are driving away conservatives who want to make a difference but can't because Sleep-ly (grab a German dictionary if you don't get the pun) doesn't want his personal authority challenged. I am a conservative on every issue - foreign policy, economic policy, social policy et al - but that won't keep me at Conservapedia. You are harming the good work of real conservatives who deal in facts and proofs. I should note that I don't expect this comment to be here tomorrow; I expect that it will be "archived" in the rubbish bin, along with my user account. "Godspeed" to anyone who ever tries to object to Schlafly's perverse logic and warped ideas. [[User:PeterS|PeterS]] 05:41, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::::: PeterS, your comments are becoming increasingly long-winded, incoherent and insulting. Get to the point succinctly and politely, and I'll respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time. By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician," nor is one necessary for such a term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

Then you've just conceded his point. If you don't define what constitutes a "great mathematician" then you can not define the set of "great mathematicians" therefore you can not legitimately claim that "nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled" be cause it is completely unquantifiable. Like-wise, you refuse to define what constitutes "homeschooled". For you, it appears to mean anyone who ever learned anything outside of a traditional public school system education from K-12 and college... but this ignores the fact that such traditional structure has not been commonplace since the dawn of history. Many of the examples you give are from several hundred years ago when this structure was not in plaace in the manner it is to day, yet you conflate any kind of home learning in that time period with homescholling as it is today... the two are not necessarily equivalent. You want them to be, in order to push your ideology. Also, discounting any example given as either "not a great mathematician" or labelling them "homeschooled" because they have some minor period of time that they were not traditionally schooled seems a prime example of either conservative deceit or deliberate ignorance. And, in case you are actually interested in true facts, and a quantifiable definition of great mathematicians... here's at least one list of the 100 greatest per Mathematics Teacher magazine from 1962: afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu/~flora/100.html You might note that Kepler is among the names listed. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:22, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:Taking a look at the first 10 names on the list:
*Newton - not homeschooled
*Leibnitz - not homeschooled
*Lagrange - self taught
*Euler - attended schooler and studied under Bernoulli
*Laplace - not homeschooled
*Euclid - unkown, though he did probably attend Plato's Academy
*Gauss - not homeschooled
*Archimedes - his schooling is also unknown
*Descartes - not homeschooled
*Cardano - homeschooled
:So 5 of the top 10 were definitely not homeschooled. One (Cardano) definitely was, one's (Lagrange's) status depends on how you define homeschooling, one (Euler) had both simultaneously, and two are unknown. Do you really want to continue the claim that nearly every great mathematician was homeschooled? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 13:36, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You don't say, but perhaps your "list" is from the 1962 ranking by "Mathematics Teacher." Nearly all the entries are (oddly) prior to the 19th century, and it's likely that most of the referenced individuals were homeschooled. I've already checked Newton, as explained above, and he did not enter a school under after age 10. So I don't find anything credible about your statements. If you want to provide details about the schooling of those to support a claim they were not homeschooled, then we can look at your detail. Otherwise, your objection is not persuasive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::If you really count ''being schooled at home until only about fourth or fifth grade and then speding the rest of his schooling years being taught in formal schools'' as homeschooling (which seems to be a poor definition), then yes, Newton was homeschooled. However, even in modern times, alegbra isn't even taught that young, so how much math schooling Newton could have received before the age of 10 is questionable. As for the others:
::*Leibnitz: "At the age of seven, Leibniz entered the Nicolai School in Leipzig"[http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html]
::*Laplace: "Laplace attended a Benedictine priory school in Beaumont-en-Auge, as a day pupil, between the ages of 7 and 16." [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Laplace.html]
::*Gauss: "At the age of seven, Carl Friedrich Gauss started elementary school" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Gauss.html]
::*Descartes: "Descartes was educated at the Jesuit college of La Flèche in Anjou. He entered the college at the age of eight years" [http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Descartes.html]
:::And while we have been providing sources, you have yet to provide a source showing that "nearly every great mathematician" was homeschooled. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 15:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Our entry has numerous examples of great mathematicians who were homeschooled. Have you even read it yet???

:::: For all the bluster by critics, we are down to only four great mathematicians who may not have been homeschooled: Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes. But even your description of those four are not persuasive, and raise more questions than they answer. By age 7 or 8, great mathematicians are often quite a bit along already in their skills. And what did these four mathematicians do after they entered school? Laplace, for example, was apparently taught mathematics in a special way by his uncle in connection with the school. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0025-5572(194902)2%3A33%3A303%3C1%3AL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::First of all, I highly resent the use of the word bluster. Second of all, you've forgotten Euler, Polya, Kepler, and Venn, mentioned above. Third, here are more of from the list of the top 100:
::::*Legendre: Went to college in Paris, before that schooling unstated [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Legendre.html]
::::*Monge: attended Oragion college before going to Lyons at 16 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Monge.html]
::::*D'Alembert: attended private school, then attended Collège des Quatre Nations [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/D'Alembert.html]
::::*Fourier: first studied at Pallais's school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fourier.html]
::::*Napier: homeschooled until age of 13 after (interestingly enough) his uncle sent his father a letter: "I pray you, sir, to send your son John to school; over to France or Flanders; for he cannot learn well at home" [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Napier.html]
::::*Viete: attended school in Fontenay-le-Comte [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Viete.html]
::::*Maclaurin: his family moved to Dumbarton specifically for the attendence of school [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Maclaurin.html]
::::*Cavalieri: studied at a Jesuit monestary and the University of Pisa [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cavalieri.html]
::::*Wallis: attended school in Ashford and Tenterden [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Wallis.html]
::::*Tartaglia: attended school from the age of four [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Tartaglia.html]
::::*Poncet: attended Lycee Imperial [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Victor_Poncelet]
::::*Chasles: attended Lycee Imperial [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Chasles.html]
::::*Cremona: educated at Ginnasio in Pavia [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Cremona.html]
::::*Boscovich: attended Ragusinum starting at age 9 [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Boscovich.html]
::::*Lambert: attended school in Mulhouse [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Lambert.html]
::::*Barrow: attended Charterhouse and Felstead [http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Barrow.html]
:::::These are just ones whose non-homeschooled education can be confirmed. This is also only from the top 50 of this one list. Many of the top 50 not mentioned weren't necessarily homeschooled either. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:20, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
Looking back, others and I have listed 24 mathematicians not homeschooled (Barrow, Boscovich, Cavalieri, Chasles, Cremona, D'Alembert, Descartes, Euler, Fourier, Gauss, Kepler, Lambert, Laplace, Legrende, Leibnitz, Maclaurin, Monge, Napier, Polya, Poncet, Tartaglia, Venn, Viete, Wallis). Your article lists 11 who were homeschooled (Cauchy, Chebyshev, Erdos, Fermat, Galois, Hamilton, Jacobi, Mandelbrot, Pascal, Poincare, Riemann) (though I might have missed one or two) [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 20:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Were you unable to provide details about your four mathematicians (Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss and Descartes) as discussed above? It seems you're now resorting to quantity rather than quality. I've already debunked several claims among your new list of 24, and at least half of them fail to qualify as "great" mathematicians. Unless you can back up your claim with respect to the four mentioned above, I'm going to move on confident that the great mathematicians were almost all homeschooled.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:50, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::"By the way, I don't have a definition for "great mathematician,"" are your own words. So why can't I call them great mathematicians? I don't have a definition either, but I think all of them are great, and I certainly think a publication entitled "Mathematics Teacher" is more qualified than you to determine who qualifies as great. Of Leibnitz, Laplace, Gauss, and Descartes, only for Laplace did you provide any evidence against formal education being their primary source of education, while I have sources that outright state that they attended a formal school of some kind. Also, I looked at your source for Laplace and I can't see beyond the first page, which states merely that Laplace's uncle was on the staff of his school and kindled his interest in mathematics, not that his uncle actually taught him in a special form. My previous citations for their education still stand. If you have any real proof that their education was still homeschooling of some sort after they entered a formal school, please enlighten me. Also, if you have debunked some of my claims, would you be so kind as to show some proof for those as well? [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 21:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, ZTak, I'm not going to do your research for you. You haven't provided a single mathematician with evidence that he was never homeschooled. I've provided in this entry countless examples of great mathematicians who were. I'll take a look at your other three examples, but am confident that nearly all of them were homeschooled also. A mathematician is unlikely to develop to greatness without the head start, independence, encouragement and flexibility that homeschooling uniquely provides.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
::::Now you're moving the goalposts. I have to prove they were '''never''' homeschooled? That's a universal negative. I can't ever prove that. That would be like asking me to prove that none of them were ever abducted by aliens who fed knowledge directly into their brain. I can't prove that such abudctions never happened. I can prove, which I did, that their main education was at some sort of formal school. I proved that for Legendre, Monge, D'Alembert, Fourier, Napier, Viete, Maclaurin, Cavalieri, Wallis, Tartaglia, Poncet, Chasles, Cremona, Boscovich, Lambert, and Barrow. Finally, you still have yet to prove your statement that Laplace was specially educated by his uncle. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess I can qualify too, eh? I wrote a theorem for [[Synthetic Division]]--which had many, many corollaries--and I was "fake schooled" up to 2nd grade mathematics to substitute for missing the preschool deadline. ("fake school" is what I called homeschooling at that age). -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFK]] 22:10, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Opinions ==

This article voices personal opinions more so than fact with a conservative point of view, directly in line with the Conservapedia Commandments. Opinions? I can find examples in the text if you would like. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Harvard University

2008-04-02T00:52:01Z

Adg2011: "retains little of its Christian foundation"

{{stub}}

moved stub template here for now, per CP guidelines. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== "retains little of its Christian foundation" ==

To claim that Harvard "retains little of its Christian foundation" nonsensical because the university operates the Harvard Divinity School http://www.hds.harvard.edu/ , lead by such ordained preachers as Peter J. Gomes and Karen L. King. The University has daily Christian services, as well as many student and faculty lead extra-curricular Christian clubs. Perhaps a better way of stating this part of the article would be to say "Though the University is no longer ran with Puritan goals in mind, a Christian influence is still felt be the presence of the Harvard Divinity School," with a link to said school's web page. Opinions? [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Keith Ellison

2008-04-02T00:34:32Z

Adg2011:

[[Image:Ghfigkm67.jpg|right|thumb|Keith Ellison]]
[[Democratic Party|Democrat]] '''Keith Ellison''' is the first [[Muslim]] to serve in the [[United States Congress]]. He represents the 5th Congressional District of [[Minnesota]]. Born in [[Detroit]], [[Michigan]], he converted to [[Islam]] while in college. Ellison is quite controversial due to his past ties with the radical [[Nation of Islam]]; he has also been accused of having had "involvement" in anti-Semitism.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000951.html</ref> In 2007, Mr. Ellison compared the [[Bush Administration]] to [[Nazi]] [[Germany]]. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289157,00.html</ref>

It is traditional for newly-sworn members of the [[House_of_Representatives|House of Representatives]] to repeat their oaths with their hand on a [[Bible]] for photographers<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/story/206/story_20604_1.html</ref>. When Ellison was ceremonially "sworn-in," he used a [[Quran]] that once belonged to [[Thomas Jefferson]].<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MEPKIG0&show_article=1</ref>, as a nod to the founding father's beliefs in the freedom of religion, as well as the Constitution's no religious test clause, found in Article VI, section 3.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
http://ellison.house.gov/

[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category: Democratic Party]]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Ellison, Keith}}
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]

Talk:Liberal Fascism

2008-04-02T00:30:10Z

Adg2011:

This page appears to be an oxymoron. To denote a similarity with the far left new deal (with policies of conservation, welfare, etc.) with policies of the far-right nazism (nativism, producerism) is absurd. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 20:30, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal Fascism

2008-04-02T00:29:09Z

Adg2011: New page: This page appears to be an oxymoron. To denote a similarity with the far left new deal (with policies of conservation, welfare, etc.) with policies of the far-right nazism (nativism, produ...

Hillary Rodham Clinton

2008-04-02T00:24:25Z

Adg2011: /* Reaction to Monica Lewinsky scandal */

[[Image:Hillary-6.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
'''Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton''' (b. 1947) is the junior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from [[New York]] and was [[First Lady]] of the United States of America during the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton Administration]] from 1993 to 2001. In 2000, she ran for the New York Senate seat vacated by the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] Senator [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]. Backed by the White House, she obtained the Democratic nomination for this Senate seat, and then won easily against [[Republican Party|Republican]] Rick Lazio (who entered the race when [[Rudy Giuliani]] withdrew). She is now making a presidential run, and she formally announced her candidacy in early 2007.

==Presidential Campaign 1992==

===Raising taxes on foreign corporations===
In the final 72 hour election crunch of the [[1992 Presidential election]] at Hillary Clinton's behest, the issues were framed as "raising taxes on foreign corporations." Hillary Clinton alleged that the Bush/Quayle ticket, the [[Republican Party]], and the Reagan coalition wanted to grant foreign [[corporation]]s doing business in the [[United States]] massive tax cuts. The Clinton campaign promised to thwart these efforts and grant the American taxpayers a [[tax cut]].<ref>''The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'', Bob Woodward, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1994/watch19940801.asp]</ref>

The result in the first 100 days after Clinton Administration won a plurality was a massive tax cut for foreign corporations through [[NAFTA]] and a [[tax increase]] on the American people.<ref>[http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_econ.html William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library]. On Aug. 10, 1993, the largest tax increase in history was signed into law, raising taxes by almost $280 billion over five years. "Instead of middle-class tax relief, President Clinton chose to include in his $241 billion tax plan higher federal gasoline taxes, tax hikes on Social Security recipients, and steep income tax hikes on small business owners. The President even tried unsuccessfully to institute a brand new $71 billion [[BTU energy tax]] that would have cost the typical family nearly $500 per year." ''The President's Forgotten Middle Class,'' Joint Economic Committee, Majority Staff, 3/22/96.</ref>

===Domestic spying===

''The Hill'' magazine reported Hillary Clinton may have been involved in [[civil right]]s violations by monitoring [[illegal wiretap]]s and [[domestic spying]] on political opponents during the 1992 camapaign.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> After the revelations came to light in a book entitled, ''Her Way'' [http://www.amazon.com/Her-Way-Ambitions-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0316017426] by Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at the ''[[New York Times]]'', and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, a [[Republican]] official remarked,
{{Cquote|it is rather unbelievable that [Hillary] Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by [[terrorist]]s as they plot and plan to kill us.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> }}

== Record as First Lady ==

During [[Bill Clinton]]'s presidency Hillary Clinton initially played an important role. Immediately after his [[inauguration]] in 1993, Hillary Clinton embarked on a [[radical]] program to create a national health care system. She headed a Health Care Task Force which submitted controversial and [[extremism|extreme]] proposals to revamp this health care, which constitutes about one sixth of the U.S. economy. She was sued by the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] for violations of the [[Federal Advisory Committee Act]], and the trial judge ruled against her and the Clinton Administration. An appellate court reversed this ruling but remanded it for further proceedings, which ultimately resulted in disclosures to comply with the law.

Hillary Clinton's friend [[Vincent Foster]] supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide. The extreme proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by [[United States Congress|Congress]]. Subsequently, the Republicans won a landslide victory in 1994, taking over both Houses of Congress.

The remainder of Hillary Clinton's tenure as First Lady was largely devoted to combating what she perceived as conspiracies. The Clinton [[White House]], wracked by multiple scandals, abruptly fired longtime members of the White House Travel Office, leading [[Congress]] to vote for a restoration of their benefits. At one point confidential tax records of Republican opponents were discovered in the White House, and no legitimate explanation was ever provided.

===Accusations of Enron-style accounting on the Health Care Task Force ===
:''Main article: [[Clinton health care plan]]''
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires every panel that includes non-government employees to have open meetings.
In January 1993, the ''[[Washington Times]]'' reported the problems with Hillary Clinton's closed door [[Healthcare Task Force]] meeting and the former Watergate crusader ignoring a post-Watergate reform. Rep. Bill Clinger (R-Pa.) demanded that the closed meetings stop. In February the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) sued. In March, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled the task force violated the FACA. The ''Washington Times'' revealed that many task-force members Clinton claimed as federal employees were not. When a list of 511 names was released, the Times noted the list "did not meet the [GAO] request for dates of employment, salaries and detailed backgrounds." <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_18/ai_83699629 ''Enron vs. Hillary care: media double standard is at work''], Brent L. Bozell III, Insight on the News, March 4, 2002.</ref>

===Conspiracy theories and enemies list===
:''Main article: [[Vast right wing conspiracy theory]]
In 1995 there were approximately 1 million computers connected to the Internet. By the end of 1998, there were 50 million. In perspective, after the invention of television, it took more than 10 years before there were 50 million sets in the world. The same rise on the Internet took less than three years.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14676 Hillary Clinton, conspiracy theorist], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, February 11, 1999.</ref> This [[economic growth]] of the Internet Hillary Clinton branded as "a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]." White House staffers were directed to write a report, at taxpayer expense, which included an enemies list of persons and organizations who subsequently endured IRS audits and harassment.<ref>Larry Klayman, WorldNetDaily 7/9/99. [http://www.alamo-girl.com/0311.htm]</ref>

In 2005, Clinton revived her campaign of Internet censorship under the guise of a vast right-wing conspiracy theory.

===Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction===

[[Hillary Clinton]] speaking on [[Saddam Hussein]]'s possession of [[Weapons of mass destruction]] said,
{{Cquote|I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he [Saddam] were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the [[Weapons of mass destruction|chemical and biological stocks]].<ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref>}}

Hillary Clinton further described the situation after weapons inspectors we're expelled during the time when America had two in the position of presidential leadership, "for the price of one."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/11/02/two_for_the_price_of_one Two For the Price of One], By Charles Krauthammer, November 2, 2007.</ref>
{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his [[nuclear]] program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to [[terrorist]]s, including [[al Qaeda]] members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6390 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002]. Retrieved from Zmag.org December 4, 2007.</ref>}}

===Reaction to Monica Lewinsky scandal===

[[Dick Morris]] and [[Eileen McGann]]
said that Clinton "loudly defended Bill and arranged for attacks on [[Monica Lewinsky]] when she knew the complete and sordid truth." [http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Hillary_Unmasked_morris/2008/02/29/76871.html] As the full extent of the scandal became known, however, Clinton forgave her husband, and the two appear to once again have a trusting, love-filled relationship. <ref>[http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/09/tem_monlede09.html]</ref>

==Run for U.S. Senate==
===Pardon of FALN terrorists===
On August 11, 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group. <ref>[http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee] testimony available at http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm, ''The Tampa Tribune'', S.J.Res. 33 (passed 95-2).</ref> On January 24, 1975 the FALN bombed Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan killing four people. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm Clinton Pardons Terror], ''New York Post'', August 13, 1999. retrieved from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org September 14, 2007.</ref> It was widely reported the pardon of terrorists was motivated by an effort to appeal for votes from the Puerto Rican community in New York.<ref>[http://www.jonathanpollard.org/senate.htm FALN Clemency and NY Senate Race], (2000). Retrieved from http://www.jonathanpollard.org September 20,2007.</ref>

== Record as U.S. Senator ==

In 2001, one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as U.S. Senator was to introduce a bill to abolish the [[Electoral College]]. This received insufficient support. No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was reported to be the biggest spender of any freshman senator in history.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_54/ai_84454903 Hillary Clinton's spending of taxpayer money], ''[[National Review]], April 22, 2002.</ref>
[[Image:070917graveconcern-x.gif|right|thumb|400px]]
Her current plans are reintroduce an [[extremism|extreme]] proposal again to [[socialism|socialize]] the health care system, this time by converting medical records into electronic form that can be easily monitored. She also pushes for universal health coverage, considered to be a step towards a [[Single Payer]], government-controlled system.

Since joining the Senate, Clinton has belonged to a conservative prayer group with the expressed purpose of "bringing Jesus back to Capitol Hill."<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html</ref> A few of her collaborators in the group include Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa).

===FEC fined campaign for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions===

In January 2006 Hillary Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign was fined $35,000 for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions. <ref>[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html Federal Elections Commission] Press Release, January 26, 2006. </ref>

===Smoking gun videotape===

WorldNetDaily reports Hillary Clinton may face a felony conviction that carries with it a five year sentence for violations of Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both." Peter Paul, a former friend and contributor to the Clintons, claims he donated $1.9 million to her Senate Campaign, which Hillary Clinton knew of and accepted, in violation of a $2000 limit on individual donations. <ref>[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320 'Smoking gun' tape indicts Hillary] Art Moore, WorldNetDaily.com, April 21, 2007.</ref> Mr. Paul will present a "smoking gun" videotape <ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2]</ref> of the event as evidence in an ongoing lawsuit involving the Hillary Clinton's fundraising activities in California.
<ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/060817_second_amended_complaint.swf]</ref>

===Failure to reform earmark process===

The noted newspaper which covers legislative affairs, ''The Hill'', reported Hillary Clinton received more [[earmark]]s for Congressional [[pork barrel]] projects than only one other United States Senator. Reforming the earmark process had been among the Democrats top priorities in the [[110th Congress]], up until the time Democrats voted to rescind the rules aimed at reform that were passed in the first 100 hours of the new Congress in January. Ethics reform and the earmark process is widely attributed as the cause why Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress after several members had been caught up in ethical scandals. ''The Hill'' reported Sen. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, much going to [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] contractors. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

===Voted against raising the minimum wage===

After voting to send troops to Iraq Hillary Clinton voted against funding the troops in Iraq. In May of 2007 Clinton voted against raising the minimum wage. <ref>[http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=12952&can_id=55463 Senate Concurrence on HR 2206] Title 8 Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, Record Vote Number 181, 05/24/2007. [http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=12952]</ref>

== Presidential Campaign 2008 ==

=== Hillary & Nixon ===

Hillary Clinton has often been compared to [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/nixon_1968_clinton_2008.html
Nixon 1968, Clinton 2008], By John Ellis, RealClearpolitics.com, November 21, 2007.</ref> Columnist Robert Novak reported in November 2007 that a Clinton agent was spreading the word that the Clinton campaign had [[scandal]]ous information about Senator [[Barack Obama]] but was not using it for purposes of party harmony. The nature of the alleged scandal was not revealed to the source of the item, a well known Democrat, who said he thought Clinton wanted to avoid a Clinton-Obama clash that would benefit a third candidate, presumably former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee and Senator [[John Edwards]].<ref>Hillary's Nixonian TacticsAgainst Obama], by Robert Novak and Timothy P. Carney, ''Human Event'', 11/21/2007.</ref>

===Failure to condemn smear campaign===
Hillary Clinton failed to vote to condemn an unpopular smear campaign conducted by the [[radical]] [[leftist]] group [[MoveOn.org]].<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-20-senate-condemn_N.htm</ref> The [[U.S. Senate]] voted 72-25 to condemn<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html Senate Votes to Condemn MoveOn for Ad Attacking General Petraeus], [[FOX News]], September 20, 2007.</ref> the unmitigated attack upon a respected career soldier. The [[U.S. House of Representatives]] one week later by an overwhelming [[bipartisan]] consensus of 341-79 expressed popular discontent with the groups tactics.<ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/26/national/w095848D93.DTL</ref> A poll showed 58% of the American people expressed disapproval, with only 23% supporting<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/23_approve_of_moveon_org_petraeus_ad_58_disapprove</ref> debasement of the political dialog over a vitally important issue of national concern. Hillary Clinton was criticized by President [[George W. Bush]] for failing to take a stand against radical extremism in civic debate.

===No criminal background checks on donors or advisers===

On September 12, 2007, the ''[[L.A. Times]]'' reported Hillary Clinton's decision to begin [[criminal]] background checks on major donors in wake of the [[Norman Hsu]] scandal. Hsu contributed more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton’s New York Senatorial race and faces charges dating back 15 years that he fleeced investors out of $1 million. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hsu12sep12,1,2928455.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=1&cset=true Campaigns feel the effects of Hsu case], By Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger, ''Los Angeles Times'', September 12, 2007.</ref> Less than one week earlier it was reported by [[MSNBC]], that Hillary Clinton was being advised by convicted criminal [[Sandy Berger]]<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm Former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger Pleads Guilty to Knowingly Removing Classified Information from the National Archives], United States Department of Justice Press Release, April 1, 2005.</ref> who plead guilty to [[theft]] of [[classified information]] from the [[National Archives]] in connection with requests for documents made by the National Commission investigating the [[September 11 terrorist attacks]] upon the [[United States]] (the [[9/11 Commission]]).

===Electability===
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref>

The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Electability Poll
|''Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 64% - 36%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 62% - 38%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 61% - 39%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 60% - 40%
|-
| John Edwards
| 59% - 41%
|-
| John McCain
| 58% - 42%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 56% - 44%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 54% - 46%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 48% - 52%
|}

The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Favorability Poll
|''Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 43% - 17%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 36% - 21%
|-
| John McCain
| 33% - 28%
|-
| John Edwards
| 32% - 28%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 25% - 12%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 24% - 20%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 21% - 20%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 20% - 18%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 19% - 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 16% - 12%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39% - 42%
|}

The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

===Promises made promises broken===

In late August 2007 Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and other members of Florida's Congressional delegation protested the Democratic National Committee's scheme<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> to deprive Floridians of equal voting rights protection<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> in selection of delegates to the 2008 DNC Presidential nominating convention. A letter sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], threatened legal action "to determine whether this could violate any state or [[federal law]]s governing and protecting individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]].... It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote...We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right."<ref>[http://www.nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ Letter from Florida Congressional Democrats to DNC Chairman Howard Dean], August 22, 2007. Retrieved from nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ September 13, 2007.</ref> The move prompted Hillary Clinton to pledge not to campaign in Florida.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ex=1346472000&en=d7f7216c6188da2e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States], By Jeff Zeeleny, ''New York Times'', September 2, 2007.</ref> A week later she was campaigning in Florida.<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/11/news/iowa/c07662f8adc84f9a8625735300091c7f.txt Candidates have events in Florida despite pledge], By Charlotte Eby, ''Sioux City Journal'', September 11, 2007.</ref>

===The nuclear option===
[[Barbara Olson]] in her 1990 book ''Hell to Pay'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0895262746/102-6782111-3076127?SubscriptionId=11NRD61HE570TCSR99R2]</ref> made a convincing case that the former Goldwater girl, raised in a Republican home, while working for the staff of the House Judiciary Committee preparing impeachment Articles against [[President Nixon]], studied Nixon very closely. Olson and others have now commented how Hillary Clinton built her political career by learning to think and act as Nixon did, and modeling herself after him. These writers cite instance after instance of such behavior. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45138 Hillary's Secret War], The plan to silence Internet journalists, Joseph Farah, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 6, 2005.</ref> When Democratic competitor [[Barack Obama]] made a public statement vowing not to use [[nuclear weapons]], Hillary Clinton shot back,
{{Cquote|I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons}}reflecting Nixon's thoughts in ''The Real War'' :
{{Cquote|[[Eisenhower]] said... "You should never let the enemy know what you will do, but it's more important that you never let the enemy know what you will not do." }}
Nixon referred to it as "the [[Madman theory]],"
{{Cquote|... statements that appear to rule out the use of force, while perhaps meant to be unprovocative, will in fact provoke an antagonist to push for more. ...we should not make statements that we will never launch a preemptive strike. Whether or not we would ever exercise that option, we should always leave open the possibility that in extreme circumstances we might. <ref>[http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1996/10/real-war.html#hole_card ''The Real War''], Richard Nixon, Warner Books, May 1980, pgs. 253 - 260.</ref>}}

===Extreme makeover===
Analyst [[Bay Buchanan]] suggests that
Hillary Clinton may suffer from a psychological condition and
that this should raise questions about her fitness for office. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref> A recent book entitled ''The Extreme Makeover of Hillary Rodham Clinton'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1596985070]</ref> examines the Senator's instability, incoherent speeches as both student and First Lady, casual disregard for the law, and ever-changing opinion on the [[Iraq war]]. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref>

These [[character flaw]]s, Buchanan writes, make Hillary overly dependent on [[guru]]s and outside experts, with no internal compass to guide her, displaying all the classic symptoms of “clinical narcissism.” The American Psychiatric Association describes this condition to include feelings of superiority, self-importance and “fantasies of unlimited success, fame or power.” The author further states, “We are not talking about self-infatuation, we are talking about a clinical condition that could make her dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander in Chief.”

===Abuse of Mother Teresa===

Hillary Clinton was chastised by a [[Catholic]] Advocacy group for using an image of [[Mother Teresa]] in a campaign ad. Clinton continues to support abortion. <ref>[http://www.fidelis.org/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1456&CMSCategoryID=10 Fidelis Covered by Catholic News Agency on Mother Teresa Video Controversy], ''Catholic News Agency,'' 05-18-2007.</ref> The U.S. Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis, an organization working with people of faith to defend the [[sanctity of life]], [[traditional marriage]], and [[religious liberty]] rights, called for Hillary Clinton to remove the image of Mother Teresa from their campaign video. In a press release the group declared the video, narrated by her Bill Clinton,
{{Cquote|is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing ...using an image of blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on abortion...Mother Teresa tirelessly fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton staunchly supports [[abortion]] on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including [[partial birth abortion]] and [[taxpayer funding of abortion]]}}

When the image of Hillary and Mother Teresa appears in the video the former president is heard saying “Hillary, in effect, was the face of America … in India;” the video then cuts to a clip of the former first lady addressing the 1995 Beijing Conference where an effort was made to declare abortion a fundamental “human right.”

===Skipping flyover country===

Hillary's strategists felt they could win the nomination by skipping Iowa as flyover country. <ref>[http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/NEWS09/705240387/1001&lead=1 Aide advises Clinton: Skip Iowa,] Thomas Beaumont, ''Des Moines Register'', May 24, 2007. </ref> Hillary Clinton's once close friend, political pundit Dick Morris, declared that she will campaign on the "Mom Strategy." Morris says this "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238117,00.html Hillary's New Strategy]: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.</ref> Hillary Clinton did exactly that on the ABC television show ''The View'' in early 2007. She was asked if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position." Hillary's claim was false. Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and also a grandmother, ran for President in 1976 on a platform that included opposition to abortion.<ref>http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw12_12310.html</ref>

==Arkansas==
During the 1970s and '80s, the Clintons invested in the [[Whitewater Development Corporation]] which later became the subject of a federal investigation, [[prosecution]]s and [[conviction]]s. Jim and Susan McDougal, and then-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker were convicted of multiple counts of financial [[fraud]], even though President Clinton testified for four hours for the defense.<ref>Once upon a Time in Arkansas, [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/clintondepo.html Transcript of Clinton's Sworn Deposition], PBS.</ref>

On the evening Bill Clinton lost his bid for a Congressional seat in 1974, Hillary is reported to have shouted in a rage at Clinton's campaign manager Paul Fray, calling him a "Jew bastard". The incident was reported in a book published by Harper Collins in 2000 entitled, ''State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton''. <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921]</ref> The author, Jerry Oppenheimer, cites three witnesses to the incident. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000. </ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

==Legal Services Corporation==
Hillary Clinton was appointed by President [[Jimmy Carter]] to head the controversial [[Legal Services Corporation]] (LSC) in 1978 and remained on the Board til 1983. <ref>[http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=225 Thwarting the Will of Congress: How the Legal Services Corporation Evaded, Diluted, and Ignored Reform], Testimony of Kenneth F. Boehm before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, House Judiciary Committee, February 28, 2002. </ref>
Under Hillary Clinton's leadership, the LSC began moving away from its legislated task of providing poor people with free lawyers and began an [[activist]] agenda to influence [[public policy]] through [[class action lawsuit]]s. One case involved bringing lawsuits to force New York's Transit Authority to hire [[heroin]] addicts. The LSC also violated its own rules by organizing political campaigns against a state referendum and against Ronald Reagan. <ref>Michael Barone , [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone070899.asp ''Taking Hillary seriously], ''Jewish World Review'', July 8, 1999. </ref>

Hillary Clinton failed the District of Columbia [[Bar Exam]] in the 1970s.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200706010006 On Today, Bernstein omitted key fact in purported disclosure of Clinton's D.C. bar exam failure: It's not news], ''[[MediaMatters]]'' June 1, 2007. Retrieved from MediaMatters.org October 4, 2007.</ref>

==Accusations of Stolen Gifts==
When the Clintons left the White House, they were accused of taking furniture that belonged not to them, but to the White House. It was explained that the movers inadvertently packed the wrong items. Most of the articles were quietly returned. <ref>"Clinton Shipped Furniture Year Ago," Washington Post, February 10, 2001.</ref>

==Goldwater girl==

Speaking at [[Selma]], Alabama's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march Hillary Clinton declared: "As a young girl I had the great privilege of hearing [[Martin Luther King|Dr. King]] speak in Chicago. The year was 1963....[Dr. King] called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the [[civil rights]] pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." In her memoirs Hillary Clinton described herself in 1964 as "an active Young Republican" and "a [[Barry Goldwater|Goldwater]] girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit." Columnist [[Robert Novak]] observed, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined [[Solid South|Southern Democratic]] [[segregation]]ists opposing the historic [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights act of 1964]] inspired by King."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/03/12/hillary,_king_and_goldwater Hillary, King and Goldwater], by Robert D. Novak, [[Townhall.com]], March 12, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Hillary Clinton|Articles about '''Hillary Clinton''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==External links==
*[http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990809/kaminer Hillary's No Liberal], Wendy Kaminer, ''The Nation'', July 22, 1999 (August 9, 1999 issue).

{{liberalism}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Hillary Rodham}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:United States Senators|Clinton, Hillary Rodham]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

2008-04-02T00:23:49Z

Adg2011: /* Reaction to Monica Lewinsky scandal */

[[Image:Hillary-6.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
'''Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton''' (b. 1947) is the junior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from [[New York]] and was [[First Lady]] of the United States of America during the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton Administration]] from 1993 to 2001. In 2000, she ran for the New York Senate seat vacated by the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] Senator [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]. Backed by the White House, she obtained the Democratic nomination for this Senate seat, and then won easily against [[Republican Party|Republican]] Rick Lazio (who entered the race when [[Rudy Giuliani]] withdrew). She is now making a presidential run, and she formally announced her candidacy in early 2007.

==Presidential Campaign 1992==

===Raising taxes on foreign corporations===
In the final 72 hour election crunch of the [[1992 Presidential election]] at Hillary Clinton's behest, the issues were framed as "raising taxes on foreign corporations." Hillary Clinton alleged that the Bush/Quayle ticket, the [[Republican Party]], and the Reagan coalition wanted to grant foreign [[corporation]]s doing business in the [[United States]] massive tax cuts. The Clinton campaign promised to thwart these efforts and grant the American taxpayers a [[tax cut]].<ref>''The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'', Bob Woodward, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1994/watch19940801.asp]</ref>

The result in the first 100 days after Clinton Administration won a plurality was a massive tax cut for foreign corporations through [[NAFTA]] and a [[tax increase]] on the American people.<ref>[http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_econ.html William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library]. On Aug. 10, 1993, the largest tax increase in history was signed into law, raising taxes by almost $280 billion over five years. "Instead of middle-class tax relief, President Clinton chose to include in his $241 billion tax plan higher federal gasoline taxes, tax hikes on Social Security recipients, and steep income tax hikes on small business owners. The President even tried unsuccessfully to institute a brand new $71 billion [[BTU energy tax]] that would have cost the typical family nearly $500 per year." ''The President's Forgotten Middle Class,'' Joint Economic Committee, Majority Staff, 3/22/96.</ref>

===Domestic spying===

''The Hill'' magazine reported Hillary Clinton may have been involved in [[civil right]]s violations by monitoring [[illegal wiretap]]s and [[domestic spying]] on political opponents during the 1992 camapaign.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> After the revelations came to light in a book entitled, ''Her Way'' [http://www.amazon.com/Her-Way-Ambitions-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0316017426] by Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at the ''[[New York Times]]'', and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, a [[Republican]] official remarked,
{{Cquote|it is rather unbelievable that [Hillary] Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by [[terrorist]]s as they plot and plan to kill us.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> }}

== Record as First Lady ==

During [[Bill Clinton]]'s presidency Hillary Clinton initially played an important role. Immediately after his [[inauguration]] in 1993, Hillary Clinton embarked on a [[radical]] program to create a national health care system. She headed a Health Care Task Force which submitted controversial and [[extremism|extreme]] proposals to revamp this health care, which constitutes about one sixth of the U.S. economy. She was sued by the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] for violations of the [[Federal Advisory Committee Act]], and the trial judge ruled against her and the Clinton Administration. An appellate court reversed this ruling but remanded it for further proceedings, which ultimately resulted in disclosures to comply with the law.

Hillary Clinton's friend [[Vincent Foster]] supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide. The extreme proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by [[United States Congress|Congress]]. Subsequently, the Republicans won a landslide victory in 1994, taking over both Houses of Congress.

The remainder of Hillary Clinton's tenure as First Lady was largely devoted to combating what she perceived as conspiracies. The Clinton [[White House]], wracked by multiple scandals, abruptly fired longtime members of the White House Travel Office, leading [[Congress]] to vote for a restoration of their benefits. At one point confidential tax records of Republican opponents were discovered in the White House, and no legitimate explanation was ever provided.

===Accusations of Enron-style accounting on the Health Care Task Force ===
:''Main article: [[Clinton health care plan]]''
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires every panel that includes non-government employees to have open meetings.
In January 1993, the ''[[Washington Times]]'' reported the problems with Hillary Clinton's closed door [[Healthcare Task Force]] meeting and the former Watergate crusader ignoring a post-Watergate reform. Rep. Bill Clinger (R-Pa.) demanded that the closed meetings stop. In February the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) sued. In March, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled the task force violated the FACA. The ''Washington Times'' revealed that many task-force members Clinton claimed as federal employees were not. When a list of 511 names was released, the Times noted the list "did not meet the [GAO] request for dates of employment, salaries and detailed backgrounds." <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_18/ai_83699629 ''Enron vs. Hillary care: media double standard is at work''], Brent L. Bozell III, Insight on the News, March 4, 2002.</ref>

===Conspiracy theories and enemies list===
:''Main article: [[Vast right wing conspiracy theory]]
In 1995 there were approximately 1 million computers connected to the Internet. By the end of 1998, there were 50 million. In perspective, after the invention of television, it took more than 10 years before there were 50 million sets in the world. The same rise on the Internet took less than three years.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14676 Hillary Clinton, conspiracy theorist], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, February 11, 1999.</ref> This [[economic growth]] of the Internet Hillary Clinton branded as "a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]." White House staffers were directed to write a report, at taxpayer expense, which included an enemies list of persons and organizations who subsequently endured IRS audits and harassment.<ref>Larry Klayman, WorldNetDaily 7/9/99. [http://www.alamo-girl.com/0311.htm]</ref>

In 2005, Clinton revived her campaign of Internet censorship under the guise of a vast right-wing conspiracy theory.

===Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction===

[[Hillary Clinton]] speaking on [[Saddam Hussein]]'s possession of [[Weapons of mass destruction]] said,
{{Cquote|I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he [Saddam] were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the [[Weapons of mass destruction|chemical and biological stocks]].<ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref>}}

Hillary Clinton further described the situation after weapons inspectors we're expelled during the time when America had two in the position of presidential leadership, "for the price of one."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/11/02/two_for_the_price_of_one Two For the Price of One], By Charles Krauthammer, November 2, 2007.</ref>
{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his [[nuclear]] program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to [[terrorist]]s, including [[al Qaeda]] members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6390 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002]. Retrieved from Zmag.org December 4, 2007.</ref>}}

===Reaction to Monica Lewinsky scandal===

[[Dick Morris]] and [[Eileen McGann]]
said that Clinton "loudly defended Bill and arranged for attacks on [[Monica Lewinsky]] when she knew the complete and sordid truth." [http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Hillary_Unmasked_morris/2008/02/29/76871.html] As the full extent of the scandal became known, however, Clinton forgave her husband, and the two appear to once again have a trusting, love-filled relationship. Retrieved from http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/09/tem_monlede09.html April 1,2008.</ref>

==Run for U.S. Senate==
===Pardon of FALN terrorists===
On August 11, 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group. <ref>[http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee] testimony available at http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm, ''The Tampa Tribune'', S.J.Res. 33 (passed 95-2).</ref> On January 24, 1975 the FALN bombed Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan killing four people. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm Clinton Pardons Terror], ''New York Post'', August 13, 1999. retrieved from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org September 14, 2007.</ref> It was widely reported the pardon of terrorists was motivated by an effort to appeal for votes from the Puerto Rican community in New York.<ref>[http://www.jonathanpollard.org/senate.htm FALN Clemency and NY Senate Race], (2000). Retrieved from http://www.jonathanpollard.org September 20,2007.</ref>

== Record as U.S. Senator ==

In 2001, one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as U.S. Senator was to introduce a bill to abolish the [[Electoral College]]. This received insufficient support. No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was reported to be the biggest spender of any freshman senator in history.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_54/ai_84454903 Hillary Clinton's spending of taxpayer money], ''[[National Review]], April 22, 2002.</ref>
[[Image:070917graveconcern-x.gif|right|thumb|400px]]
Her current plans are reintroduce an [[extremism|extreme]] proposal again to [[socialism|socialize]] the health care system, this time by converting medical records into electronic form that can be easily monitored. She also pushes for universal health coverage, considered to be a step towards a [[Single Payer]], government-controlled system.

Since joining the Senate, Clinton has belonged to a conservative prayer group with the expressed purpose of "bringing Jesus back to Capitol Hill."<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html</ref> A few of her collaborators in the group include Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa).

===FEC fined campaign for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions===

In January 2006 Hillary Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign was fined $35,000 for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions. <ref>[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html Federal Elections Commission] Press Release, January 26, 2006. </ref>

===Smoking gun videotape===

WorldNetDaily reports Hillary Clinton may face a felony conviction that carries with it a five year sentence for violations of Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both." Peter Paul, a former friend and contributor to the Clintons, claims he donated $1.9 million to her Senate Campaign, which Hillary Clinton knew of and accepted, in violation of a $2000 limit on individual donations. <ref>[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320 'Smoking gun' tape indicts Hillary] Art Moore, WorldNetDaily.com, April 21, 2007.</ref> Mr. Paul will present a "smoking gun" videotape <ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2]</ref> of the event as evidence in an ongoing lawsuit involving the Hillary Clinton's fundraising activities in California.
<ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/060817_second_amended_complaint.swf]</ref>

===Failure to reform earmark process===

The noted newspaper which covers legislative affairs, ''The Hill'', reported Hillary Clinton received more [[earmark]]s for Congressional [[pork barrel]] projects than only one other United States Senator. Reforming the earmark process had been among the Democrats top priorities in the [[110th Congress]], up until the time Democrats voted to rescind the rules aimed at reform that were passed in the first 100 hours of the new Congress in January. Ethics reform and the earmark process is widely attributed as the cause why Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress after several members had been caught up in ethical scandals. ''The Hill'' reported Sen. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, much going to [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] contractors. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

===Voted against raising the minimum wage===

After voting to send troops to Iraq Hillary Clinton voted against funding the troops in Iraq. In May of 2007 Clinton voted against raising the minimum wage. <ref>[http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=12952&can_id=55463 Senate Concurrence on HR 2206] Title 8 Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, Record Vote Number 181, 05/24/2007. [http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=12952]</ref>

== Presidential Campaign 2008 ==

=== Hillary & Nixon ===

Hillary Clinton has often been compared to [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/nixon_1968_clinton_2008.html
Nixon 1968, Clinton 2008], By John Ellis, RealClearpolitics.com, November 21, 2007.</ref> Columnist Robert Novak reported in November 2007 that a Clinton agent was spreading the word that the Clinton campaign had [[scandal]]ous information about Senator [[Barack Obama]] but was not using it for purposes of party harmony. The nature of the alleged scandal was not revealed to the source of the item, a well known Democrat, who said he thought Clinton wanted to avoid a Clinton-Obama clash that would benefit a third candidate, presumably former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee and Senator [[John Edwards]].<ref>Hillary's Nixonian TacticsAgainst Obama], by Robert Novak and Timothy P. Carney, ''Human Event'', 11/21/2007.</ref>

===Failure to condemn smear campaign===
Hillary Clinton failed to vote to condemn an unpopular smear campaign conducted by the [[radical]] [[leftist]] group [[MoveOn.org]].<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-20-senate-condemn_N.htm</ref> The [[U.S. Senate]] voted 72-25 to condemn<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html Senate Votes to Condemn MoveOn for Ad Attacking General Petraeus], [[FOX News]], September 20, 2007.</ref> the unmitigated attack upon a respected career soldier. The [[U.S. House of Representatives]] one week later by an overwhelming [[bipartisan]] consensus of 341-79 expressed popular discontent with the groups tactics.<ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/26/national/w095848D93.DTL</ref> A poll showed 58% of the American people expressed disapproval, with only 23% supporting<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/23_approve_of_moveon_org_petraeus_ad_58_disapprove</ref> debasement of the political dialog over a vitally important issue of national concern. Hillary Clinton was criticized by President [[George W. Bush]] for failing to take a stand against radical extremism in civic debate.

===No criminal background checks on donors or advisers===

On September 12, 2007, the ''[[L.A. Times]]'' reported Hillary Clinton's decision to begin [[criminal]] background checks on major donors in wake of the [[Norman Hsu]] scandal. Hsu contributed more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton’s New York Senatorial race and faces charges dating back 15 years that he fleeced investors out of $1 million. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hsu12sep12,1,2928455.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=1&cset=true Campaigns feel the effects of Hsu case], By Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger, ''Los Angeles Times'', September 12, 2007.</ref> Less than one week earlier it was reported by [[MSNBC]], that Hillary Clinton was being advised by convicted criminal [[Sandy Berger]]<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm Former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger Pleads Guilty to Knowingly Removing Classified Information from the National Archives], United States Department of Justice Press Release, April 1, 2005.</ref> who plead guilty to [[theft]] of [[classified information]] from the [[National Archives]] in connection with requests for documents made by the National Commission investigating the [[September 11 terrorist attacks]] upon the [[United States]] (the [[9/11 Commission]]).

===Electability===
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref>

The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Electability Poll
|''Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 64% - 36%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 62% - 38%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 61% - 39%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 60% - 40%
|-
| John Edwards
| 59% - 41%
|-
| John McCain
| 58% - 42%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 56% - 44%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 54% - 46%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 48% - 52%
|}

The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Favorability Poll
|''Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 43% - 17%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 36% - 21%
|-
| John McCain
| 33% - 28%
|-
| John Edwards
| 32% - 28%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 25% - 12%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 24% - 20%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 21% - 20%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 20% - 18%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 19% - 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 16% - 12%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39% - 42%
|}

The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

===Promises made promises broken===

In late August 2007 Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and other members of Florida's Congressional delegation protested the Democratic National Committee's scheme<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> to deprive Floridians of equal voting rights protection<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> in selection of delegates to the 2008 DNC Presidential nominating convention. A letter sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], threatened legal action "to determine whether this could violate any state or [[federal law]]s governing and protecting individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]].... It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote...We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right."<ref>[http://www.nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ Letter from Florida Congressional Democrats to DNC Chairman Howard Dean], August 22, 2007. Retrieved from nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ September 13, 2007.</ref> The move prompted Hillary Clinton to pledge not to campaign in Florida.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ex=1346472000&en=d7f7216c6188da2e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States], By Jeff Zeeleny, ''New York Times'', September 2, 2007.</ref> A week later she was campaigning in Florida.<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/11/news/iowa/c07662f8adc84f9a8625735300091c7f.txt Candidates have events in Florida despite pledge], By Charlotte Eby, ''Sioux City Journal'', September 11, 2007.</ref>

===The nuclear option===
[[Barbara Olson]] in her 1990 book ''Hell to Pay'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0895262746/102-6782111-3076127?SubscriptionId=11NRD61HE570TCSR99R2]</ref> made a convincing case that the former Goldwater girl, raised in a Republican home, while working for the staff of the House Judiciary Committee preparing impeachment Articles against [[President Nixon]], studied Nixon very closely. Olson and others have now commented how Hillary Clinton built her political career by learning to think and act as Nixon did, and modeling herself after him. These writers cite instance after instance of such behavior. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45138 Hillary's Secret War], The plan to silence Internet journalists, Joseph Farah, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 6, 2005.</ref> When Democratic competitor [[Barack Obama]] made a public statement vowing not to use [[nuclear weapons]], Hillary Clinton shot back,
{{Cquote|I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons}}reflecting Nixon's thoughts in ''The Real War'' :
{{Cquote|[[Eisenhower]] said... "You should never let the enemy know what you will do, but it's more important that you never let the enemy know what you will not do." }}
Nixon referred to it as "the [[Madman theory]],"
{{Cquote|... statements that appear to rule out the use of force, while perhaps meant to be unprovocative, will in fact provoke an antagonist to push for more. ...we should not make statements that we will never launch a preemptive strike. Whether or not we would ever exercise that option, we should always leave open the possibility that in extreme circumstances we might. <ref>[http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1996/10/real-war.html#hole_card ''The Real War''], Richard Nixon, Warner Books, May 1980, pgs. 253 - 260.</ref>}}

===Extreme makeover===
Analyst [[Bay Buchanan]] suggests that
Hillary Clinton may suffer from a psychological condition and
that this should raise questions about her fitness for office. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref> A recent book entitled ''The Extreme Makeover of Hillary Rodham Clinton'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1596985070]</ref> examines the Senator's instability, incoherent speeches as both student and First Lady, casual disregard for the law, and ever-changing opinion on the [[Iraq war]]. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref>

These [[character flaw]]s, Buchanan writes, make Hillary overly dependent on [[guru]]s and outside experts, with no internal compass to guide her, displaying all the classic symptoms of “clinical narcissism.” The American Psychiatric Association describes this condition to include feelings of superiority, self-importance and “fantasies of unlimited success, fame or power.” The author further states, “We are not talking about self-infatuation, we are talking about a clinical condition that could make her dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander in Chief.”

===Abuse of Mother Teresa===

Hillary Clinton was chastised by a [[Catholic]] Advocacy group for using an image of [[Mother Teresa]] in a campaign ad. Clinton continues to support abortion. <ref>[http://www.fidelis.org/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1456&CMSCategoryID=10 Fidelis Covered by Catholic News Agency on Mother Teresa Video Controversy], ''Catholic News Agency,'' 05-18-2007.</ref> The U.S. Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis, an organization working with people of faith to defend the [[sanctity of life]], [[traditional marriage]], and [[religious liberty]] rights, called for Hillary Clinton to remove the image of Mother Teresa from their campaign video. In a press release the group declared the video, narrated by her Bill Clinton,
{{Cquote|is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing ...using an image of blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on abortion...Mother Teresa tirelessly fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton staunchly supports [[abortion]] on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including [[partial birth abortion]] and [[taxpayer funding of abortion]]}}

When the image of Hillary and Mother Teresa appears in the video the former president is heard saying “Hillary, in effect, was the face of America … in India;” the video then cuts to a clip of the former first lady addressing the 1995 Beijing Conference where an effort was made to declare abortion a fundamental “human right.”

===Skipping flyover country===

Hillary's strategists felt they could win the nomination by skipping Iowa as flyover country. <ref>[http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/NEWS09/705240387/1001&lead=1 Aide advises Clinton: Skip Iowa,] Thomas Beaumont, ''Des Moines Register'', May 24, 2007. </ref> Hillary Clinton's once close friend, political pundit Dick Morris, declared that she will campaign on the "Mom Strategy." Morris says this "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238117,00.html Hillary's New Strategy]: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.</ref> Hillary Clinton did exactly that on the ABC television show ''The View'' in early 2007. She was asked if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position." Hillary's claim was false. Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and also a grandmother, ran for President in 1976 on a platform that included opposition to abortion.<ref>http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw12_12310.html</ref>

==Arkansas==
During the 1970s and '80s, the Clintons invested in the [[Whitewater Development Corporation]] which later became the subject of a federal investigation, [[prosecution]]s and [[conviction]]s. Jim and Susan McDougal, and then-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker were convicted of multiple counts of financial [[fraud]], even though President Clinton testified for four hours for the defense.<ref>Once upon a Time in Arkansas, [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/clintondepo.html Transcript of Clinton's Sworn Deposition], PBS.</ref>

On the evening Bill Clinton lost his bid for a Congressional seat in 1974, Hillary is reported to have shouted in a rage at Clinton's campaign manager Paul Fray, calling him a "Jew bastard". The incident was reported in a book published by Harper Collins in 2000 entitled, ''State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton''. <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921]</ref> The author, Jerry Oppenheimer, cites three witnesses to the incident. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000. </ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

==Legal Services Corporation==
Hillary Clinton was appointed by President [[Jimmy Carter]] to head the controversial [[Legal Services Corporation]] (LSC) in 1978 and remained on the Board til 1983. <ref>[http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=225 Thwarting the Will of Congress: How the Legal Services Corporation Evaded, Diluted, and Ignored Reform], Testimony of Kenneth F. Boehm before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, House Judiciary Committee, February 28, 2002. </ref>
Under Hillary Clinton's leadership, the LSC began moving away from its legislated task of providing poor people with free lawyers and began an [[activist]] agenda to influence [[public policy]] through [[class action lawsuit]]s. One case involved bringing lawsuits to force New York's Transit Authority to hire [[heroin]] addicts. The LSC also violated its own rules by organizing political campaigns against a state referendum and against Ronald Reagan. <ref>Michael Barone , [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone070899.asp ''Taking Hillary seriously], ''Jewish World Review'', July 8, 1999. </ref>

Hillary Clinton failed the District of Columbia [[Bar Exam]] in the 1970s.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200706010006 On Today, Bernstein omitted key fact in purported disclosure of Clinton's D.C. bar exam failure: It's not news], ''[[MediaMatters]]'' June 1, 2007. Retrieved from MediaMatters.org October 4, 2007.</ref>

==Accusations of Stolen Gifts==
When the Clintons left the White House, they were accused of taking furniture that belonged not to them, but to the White House. It was explained that the movers inadvertently packed the wrong items. Most of the articles were quietly returned. <ref>"Clinton Shipped Furniture Year Ago," Washington Post, February 10, 2001.</ref>

==Goldwater girl==

Speaking at [[Selma]], Alabama's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march Hillary Clinton declared: "As a young girl I had the great privilege of hearing [[Martin Luther King|Dr. King]] speak in Chicago. The year was 1963....[Dr. King] called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the [[civil rights]] pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." In her memoirs Hillary Clinton described herself in 1964 as "an active Young Republican" and "a [[Barry Goldwater|Goldwater]] girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit." Columnist [[Robert Novak]] observed, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined [[Solid South|Southern Democratic]] [[segregation]]ists opposing the historic [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights act of 1964]] inspired by King."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/03/12/hillary,_king_and_goldwater Hillary, King and Goldwater], by Robert D. Novak, [[Townhall.com]], March 12, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Hillary Clinton|Articles about '''Hillary Clinton''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==External links==
*[http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990809/kaminer Hillary's No Liberal], Wendy Kaminer, ''The Nation'', July 22, 1999 (August 9, 1999 issue).

{{liberalism}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Hillary Rodham}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:United States Senators|Clinton, Hillary Rodham]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Hillary Rodham Clinton

2008-04-02T00:22:51Z

Adg2011: /* Reaction to Monica Lewinsky scandal */

[[Image:Hillary-6.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Hillary Rodham Clinton]]
'''Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton''' (b. 1947) is the junior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from [[New York]] and was [[First Lady]] of the United States of America during the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton Administration]] from 1993 to 2001. In 2000, she ran for the New York Senate seat vacated by the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] Senator [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]. Backed by the White House, she obtained the Democratic nomination for this Senate seat, and then won easily against [[Republican Party|Republican]] Rick Lazio (who entered the race when [[Rudy Giuliani]] withdrew). She is now making a presidential run, and she formally announced her candidacy in early 2007.

==Presidential Campaign 1992==

===Raising taxes on foreign corporations===
In the final 72 hour election crunch of the [[1992 Presidential election]] at Hillary Clinton's behest, the issues were framed as "raising taxes on foreign corporations." Hillary Clinton alleged that the Bush/Quayle ticket, the [[Republican Party]], and the Reagan coalition wanted to grant foreign [[corporation]]s doing business in the [[United States]] massive tax cuts. The Clinton campaign promised to thwart these efforts and grant the American taxpayers a [[tax cut]].<ref>''The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'', Bob Woodward, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1994/watch19940801.asp]</ref>

The result in the first 100 days after Clinton Administration won a plurality was a massive tax cut for foreign corporations through [[NAFTA]] and a [[tax increase]] on the American people.<ref>[http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_econ.html William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library]. On Aug. 10, 1993, the largest tax increase in history was signed into law, raising taxes by almost $280 billion over five years. "Instead of middle-class tax relief, President Clinton chose to include in his $241 billion tax plan higher federal gasoline taxes, tax hikes on Social Security recipients, and steep income tax hikes on small business owners. The President even tried unsuccessfully to institute a brand new $71 billion [[BTU energy tax]] that would have cost the typical family nearly $500 per year." ''The President's Forgotten Middle Class,'' Joint Economic Committee, Majority Staff, 3/22/96.</ref>

===Domestic spying===

''The Hill'' magazine reported Hillary Clinton may have been involved in [[civil right]]s violations by monitoring [[illegal wiretap]]s and [[domestic spying]] on political opponents during the 1992 camapaign.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> After the revelations came to light in a book entitled, ''Her Way'' [http://www.amazon.com/Her-Way-Ambitions-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0316017426] by Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at the ''[[New York Times]]'', and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, a [[Republican]] official remarked,
{{Cquote|it is rather unbelievable that [Hillary] Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by [[terrorist]]s as they plot and plan to kill us.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> }}

== Record as First Lady ==

During [[Bill Clinton]]'s presidency Hillary Clinton initially played an important role. Immediately after his [[inauguration]] in 1993, Hillary Clinton embarked on a [[radical]] program to create a national health care system. She headed a Health Care Task Force which submitted controversial and [[extremism|extreme]] proposals to revamp this health care, which constitutes about one sixth of the U.S. economy. She was sued by the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] for violations of the [[Federal Advisory Committee Act]], and the trial judge ruled against her and the Clinton Administration. An appellate court reversed this ruling but remanded it for further proceedings, which ultimately resulted in disclosures to comply with the law.

Hillary Clinton's friend [[Vincent Foster]] supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide. The extreme proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by [[United States Congress|Congress]]. Subsequently, the Republicans won a landslide victory in 1994, taking over both Houses of Congress.

The remainder of Hillary Clinton's tenure as First Lady was largely devoted to combating what she perceived as conspiracies. The Clinton [[White House]], wracked by multiple scandals, abruptly fired longtime members of the White House Travel Office, leading [[Congress]] to vote for a restoration of their benefits. At one point confidential tax records of Republican opponents were discovered in the White House, and no legitimate explanation was ever provided.

===Accusations of Enron-style accounting on the Health Care Task Force ===
:''Main article: [[Clinton health care plan]]''
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires every panel that includes non-government employees to have open meetings.
In January 1993, the ''[[Washington Times]]'' reported the problems with Hillary Clinton's closed door [[Healthcare Task Force]] meeting and the former Watergate crusader ignoring a post-Watergate reform. Rep. Bill Clinger (R-Pa.) demanded that the closed meetings stop. In February the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) sued. In March, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled the task force violated the FACA. The ''Washington Times'' revealed that many task-force members Clinton claimed as federal employees were not. When a list of 511 names was released, the Times noted the list "did not meet the [GAO] request for dates of employment, salaries and detailed backgrounds." <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_18/ai_83699629 ''Enron vs. Hillary care: media double standard is at work''], Brent L. Bozell III, Insight on the News, March 4, 2002.</ref>

===Conspiracy theories and enemies list===
:''Main article: [[Vast right wing conspiracy theory]]
In 1995 there were approximately 1 million computers connected to the Internet. By the end of 1998, there were 50 million. In perspective, after the invention of television, it took more than 10 years before there were 50 million sets in the world. The same rise on the Internet took less than three years.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14676 Hillary Clinton, conspiracy theorist], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, February 11, 1999.</ref> This [[economic growth]] of the Internet Hillary Clinton branded as "a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]." White House staffers were directed to write a report, at taxpayer expense, which included an enemies list of persons and organizations who subsequently endured IRS audits and harassment.<ref>Larry Klayman, WorldNetDaily 7/9/99. [http://www.alamo-girl.com/0311.htm]</ref>

In 2005, Clinton revived her campaign of Internet censorship under the guise of a vast right-wing conspiracy theory.

===Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction===

[[Hillary Clinton]] speaking on [[Saddam Hussein]]'s possession of [[Weapons of mass destruction]] said,
{{Cquote|I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he [Saddam] were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the [[Weapons of mass destruction|chemical and biological stocks]].<ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref>}}

Hillary Clinton further described the situation after weapons inspectors we're expelled during the time when America had two in the position of presidential leadership, "for the price of one."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/11/02/two_for_the_price_of_one Two For the Price of One], By Charles Krauthammer, November 2, 2007.</ref>
{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his [[nuclear]] program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to [[terrorist]]s, including [[al Qaeda]] members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6390 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002]. Retrieved from Zmag.org December 4, 2007.</ref>}}

===Reaction to Monica Lewinsky scandal===

[[Dick Morris]] and [[Eileen McGann]]
said that Clinton "loudly defended Bill and arranged for attacks on [[Monica Lewinsky]] when she knew the complete and sordid truth." [http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Hillary_Unmasked_morris/2008/02/29/76871.html] As the full extent of the scandal became known, however, Clinton forgave her husband, and the two appear to once again have a trusting, love-filled relationship. http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/09/tem_monlede09.html

==Run for U.S. Senate==
===Pardon of FALN terrorists===
On August 11, 1999, President Clinton offered clemency to members of the [[Armed Forces of National Liberation]] (FALN) [[terrorist]] group. <ref>[http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/92199CoddlingTerrorists.pdf U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee] testimony available at http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/wl91599.htm, ''The Tampa Tribune'', S.J.Res. 33 (passed 95-2).</ref> On January 24, 1975 the FALN bombed Fraunces Tavern in Manhattan killing four people. Over a six-year period, the group claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings that took six lives and injured some 130 people.<ref>[http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puertorico/sep4.htm Clinton Pardons Terror], ''New York Post'', August 13, 1999. retrieved from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org September 14, 2007.</ref> It was widely reported the pardon of terrorists was motivated by an effort to appeal for votes from the Puerto Rican community in New York.<ref>[http://www.jonathanpollard.org/senate.htm FALN Clemency and NY Senate Race], (2000). Retrieved from http://www.jonathanpollard.org September 20,2007.</ref>

== Record as U.S. Senator ==

In 2001, one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as U.S. Senator was to introduce a bill to abolish the [[Electoral College]]. This received insufficient support. No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was reported to be the biggest spender of any freshman senator in history.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_54/ai_84454903 Hillary Clinton's spending of taxpayer money], ''[[National Review]], April 22, 2002.</ref>
[[Image:070917graveconcern-x.gif|right|thumb|400px]]
Her current plans are reintroduce an [[extremism|extreme]] proposal again to [[socialism|socialize]] the health care system, this time by converting medical records into electronic form that can be easily monitored. She also pushes for universal health coverage, considered to be a step towards a [[Single Payer]], government-controlled system.

Since joining the Senate, Clinton has belonged to a conservative prayer group with the expressed purpose of "bringing Jesus back to Capitol Hill."<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html</ref> A few of her collaborators in the group include Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa).

===FEC fined campaign for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions===

In January 2006 Hillary Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign was fined $35,000 for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions. <ref>[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html Federal Elections Commission] Press Release, January 26, 2006. </ref>

===Smoking gun videotape===

WorldNetDaily reports Hillary Clinton may face a felony conviction that carries with it a five year sentence for violations of Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both." Peter Paul, a former friend and contributor to the Clintons, claims he donated $1.9 million to her Senate Campaign, which Hillary Clinton knew of and accepted, in violation of a $2000 limit on individual donations. <ref>[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320 'Smoking gun' tape indicts Hillary] Art Moore, WorldNetDaily.com, April 21, 2007.</ref> Mr. Paul will present a "smoking gun" videotape <ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2]</ref> of the event as evidence in an ongoing lawsuit involving the Hillary Clinton's fundraising activities in California.
<ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/060817_second_amended_complaint.swf]</ref>

===Failure to reform earmark process===

The noted newspaper which covers legislative affairs, ''The Hill'', reported Hillary Clinton received more [[earmark]]s for Congressional [[pork barrel]] projects than only one other United States Senator. Reforming the earmark process had been among the Democrats top priorities in the [[110th Congress]], up until the time Democrats voted to rescind the rules aimed at reform that were passed in the first 100 hours of the new Congress in January. Ethics reform and the earmark process is widely attributed as the cause why Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress after several members had been caught up in ethical scandals. ''The Hill'' reported Sen. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, much going to [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] contractors. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

===Voted against raising the minimum wage===

After voting to send troops to Iraq Hillary Clinton voted against funding the troops in Iraq. In May of 2007 Clinton voted against raising the minimum wage. <ref>[http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=12952&can_id=55463 Senate Concurrence on HR 2206] Title 8 Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, Record Vote Number 181, 05/24/2007. [http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=12952]</ref>

== Presidential Campaign 2008 ==

=== Hillary & Nixon ===

Hillary Clinton has often been compared to [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/nixon_1968_clinton_2008.html
Nixon 1968, Clinton 2008], By John Ellis, RealClearpolitics.com, November 21, 2007.</ref> Columnist Robert Novak reported in November 2007 that a Clinton agent was spreading the word that the Clinton campaign had [[scandal]]ous information about Senator [[Barack Obama]] but was not using it for purposes of party harmony. The nature of the alleged scandal was not revealed to the source of the item, a well known Democrat, who said he thought Clinton wanted to avoid a Clinton-Obama clash that would benefit a third candidate, presumably former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee and Senator [[John Edwards]].<ref>Hillary's Nixonian TacticsAgainst Obama], by Robert Novak and Timothy P. Carney, ''Human Event'', 11/21/2007.</ref>

===Failure to condemn smear campaign===
Hillary Clinton failed to vote to condemn an unpopular smear campaign conducted by the [[radical]] [[leftist]] group [[MoveOn.org]].<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-20-senate-condemn_N.htm</ref> The [[U.S. Senate]] voted 72-25 to condemn<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html Senate Votes to Condemn MoveOn for Ad Attacking General Petraeus], [[FOX News]], September 20, 2007.</ref> the unmitigated attack upon a respected career soldier. The [[U.S. House of Representatives]] one week later by an overwhelming [[bipartisan]] consensus of 341-79 expressed popular discontent with the groups tactics.<ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/26/national/w095848D93.DTL</ref> A poll showed 58% of the American people expressed disapproval, with only 23% supporting<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/23_approve_of_moveon_org_petraeus_ad_58_disapprove</ref> debasement of the political dialog over a vitally important issue of national concern. Hillary Clinton was criticized by President [[George W. Bush]] for failing to take a stand against radical extremism in civic debate.

===No criminal background checks on donors or advisers===

On September 12, 2007, the ''[[L.A. Times]]'' reported Hillary Clinton's decision to begin [[criminal]] background checks on major donors in wake of the [[Norman Hsu]] scandal. Hsu contributed more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton’s New York Senatorial race and faces charges dating back 15 years that he fleeced investors out of $1 million. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hsu12sep12,1,2928455.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=1&cset=true Campaigns feel the effects of Hsu case], By Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger, ''Los Angeles Times'', September 12, 2007.</ref> Less than one week earlier it was reported by [[MSNBC]], that Hillary Clinton was being advised by convicted criminal [[Sandy Berger]]<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm Former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger Pleads Guilty to Knowingly Removing Classified Information from the National Archives], United States Department of Justice Press Release, April 1, 2005.</ref> who plead guilty to [[theft]] of [[classified information]] from the [[National Archives]] in connection with requests for documents made by the National Commission investigating the [[September 11 terrorist attacks]] upon the [[United States]] (the [[9/11 Commission]]).

===Electability===
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp is whether or not she is electable. An Electability Poll in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref>

The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Electability Poll
|''Who would you vote for, the candidate or somebody else?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 64% - 36%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 62% - 38%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 61% - 39%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 60% - 40%
|-
| John Edwards
| 59% - 41%
|-
| John McCain
| 58% - 42%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 57% - 43%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 56% - 44%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 54% - 46%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 48% - 52%
|}

The poll also revealed that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom more voters view her unfavorably than favorably. 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while a larger number of 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating:

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|+ Favorability Poll
|''Do you view the candidate favorably or unfavorably?''
|-
! Candidate
! Results
|-
| Rudy Giuliani
| 43% - 17%
|-
| Barak Obama
| 36% - 21%
|-
| John McCain
| 33% - 28%
|-
| John Edwards
| 32% - 28%
|-
| Fred Thompson
| 25% - 12%
|-
| Mitt Romney
| 24% - 20%
|-
| Joseph Biden
| 21% - 20%
|-
| Michael Bloomberg
| 20% - 18%
|-
| Bill Richardson
| 19% - 15%
|-
| Mike Huckabee
| 16% - 12%
|-
| Hillary Clinton
| 39% - 42%
|}

The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%.

===Promises made promises broken===

In late August 2007 Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and other members of Florida's Congressional delegation protested the Democratic National Committee's scheme<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> to deprive Floridians of equal voting rights protection<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> in selection of delegates to the 2008 DNC Presidential nominating convention. A letter sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], threatened legal action "to determine whether this could violate any state or [[federal law]]s governing and protecting individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]].... It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote...We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right."<ref>[http://www.nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ Letter from Florida Congressional Democrats to DNC Chairman Howard Dean], August 22, 2007. Retrieved from nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ September 13, 2007.</ref> The move prompted Hillary Clinton to pledge not to campaign in Florida.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ex=1346472000&en=d7f7216c6188da2e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States], By Jeff Zeeleny, ''New York Times'', September 2, 2007.</ref> A week later she was campaigning in Florida.<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/11/news/iowa/c07662f8adc84f9a8625735300091c7f.txt Candidates have events in Florida despite pledge], By Charlotte Eby, ''Sioux City Journal'', September 11, 2007.</ref>

===The nuclear option===
[[Barbara Olson]] in her 1990 book ''Hell to Pay'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0895262746/102-6782111-3076127?SubscriptionId=11NRD61HE570TCSR99R2]</ref> made a convincing case that the former Goldwater girl, raised in a Republican home, while working for the staff of the House Judiciary Committee preparing impeachment Articles against [[President Nixon]], studied Nixon very closely. Olson and others have now commented how Hillary Clinton built her political career by learning to think and act as Nixon did, and modeling herself after him. These writers cite instance after instance of such behavior. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45138 Hillary's Secret War], The plan to silence Internet journalists, Joseph Farah, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 6, 2005.</ref> When Democratic competitor [[Barack Obama]] made a public statement vowing not to use [[nuclear weapons]], Hillary Clinton shot back,
{{Cquote|I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons}}reflecting Nixon's thoughts in ''The Real War'' :
{{Cquote|[[Eisenhower]] said... "You should never let the enemy know what you will do, but it's more important that you never let the enemy know what you will not do." }}
Nixon referred to it as "the [[Madman theory]],"
{{Cquote|... statements that appear to rule out the use of force, while perhaps meant to be unprovocative, will in fact provoke an antagonist to push for more. ...we should not make statements that we will never launch a preemptive strike. Whether or not we would ever exercise that option, we should always leave open the possibility that in extreme circumstances we might. <ref>[http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1996/10/real-war.html#hole_card ''The Real War''], Richard Nixon, Warner Books, May 1980, pgs. 253 - 260.</ref>}}

===Extreme makeover===
Analyst [[Bay Buchanan]] suggests that
Hillary Clinton may suffer from a psychological condition and
that this should raise questions about her fitness for office. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref> A recent book entitled ''The Extreme Makeover of Hillary Rodham Clinton'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1596985070]</ref> examines the Senator's instability, incoherent speeches as both student and First Lady, casual disregard for the law, and ever-changing opinion on the [[Iraq war]]. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref>

These [[character flaw]]s, Buchanan writes, make Hillary overly dependent on [[guru]]s and outside experts, with no internal compass to guide her, displaying all the classic symptoms of “clinical narcissism.” The American Psychiatric Association describes this condition to include feelings of superiority, self-importance and “fantasies of unlimited success, fame or power.” The author further states, “We are not talking about self-infatuation, we are talking about a clinical condition that could make her dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander in Chief.”

===Abuse of Mother Teresa===

Hillary Clinton was chastised by a [[Catholic]] Advocacy group for using an image of [[Mother Teresa]] in a campaign ad. Clinton continues to support abortion. <ref>[http://www.fidelis.org/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1456&CMSCategoryID=10 Fidelis Covered by Catholic News Agency on Mother Teresa Video Controversy], ''Catholic News Agency,'' 05-18-2007.</ref> The U.S. Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis, an organization working with people of faith to defend the [[sanctity of life]], [[traditional marriage]], and [[religious liberty]] rights, called for Hillary Clinton to remove the image of Mother Teresa from their campaign video. In a press release the group declared the video, narrated by her Bill Clinton,
{{Cquote|is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing ...using an image of blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on abortion...Mother Teresa tirelessly fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton staunchly supports [[abortion]] on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including [[partial birth abortion]] and [[taxpayer funding of abortion]]}}

When the image of Hillary and Mother Teresa appears in the video the former president is heard saying “Hillary, in effect, was the face of America … in India;” the video then cuts to a clip of the former first lady addressing the 1995 Beijing Conference where an effort was made to declare abortion a fundamental “human right.”

===Skipping flyover country===

Hillary's strategists felt they could win the nomination by skipping Iowa as flyover country. <ref>[http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/NEWS09/705240387/1001&lead=1 Aide advises Clinton: Skip Iowa,] Thomas Beaumont, ''Des Moines Register'', May 24, 2007. </ref> Hillary Clinton's once close friend, political pundit Dick Morris, declared that she will campaign on the "Mom Strategy." Morris says this "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238117,00.html Hillary's New Strategy]: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.</ref> Hillary Clinton did exactly that on the ABC television show ''The View'' in early 2007. She was asked if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position." Hillary's claim was false. Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and also a grandmother, ran for President in 1976 on a platform that included opposition to abortion.<ref>http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw12_12310.html</ref>

==Arkansas==
During the 1970s and '80s, the Clintons invested in the [[Whitewater Development Corporation]] which later became the subject of a federal investigation, [[prosecution]]s and [[conviction]]s. Jim and Susan McDougal, and then-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker were convicted of multiple counts of financial [[fraud]], even though President Clinton testified for four hours for the defense.<ref>Once upon a Time in Arkansas, [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/clintondepo.html Transcript of Clinton's Sworn Deposition], PBS.</ref>

On the evening Bill Clinton lost his bid for a Congressional seat in 1974, Hillary is reported to have shouted in a rage at Clinton's campaign manager Paul Fray, calling him a "Jew bastard". The incident was reported in a book published by Harper Collins in 2000 entitled, ''State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton''. <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921]</ref> The author, Jerry Oppenheimer, cites three witnesses to the incident. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000. </ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

==Legal Services Corporation==
Hillary Clinton was appointed by President [[Jimmy Carter]] to head the controversial [[Legal Services Corporation]] (LSC) in 1978 and remained on the Board til 1983. <ref>[http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=225 Thwarting the Will of Congress: How the Legal Services Corporation Evaded, Diluted, and Ignored Reform], Testimony of Kenneth F. Boehm before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, House Judiciary Committee, February 28, 2002. </ref>
Under Hillary Clinton's leadership, the LSC began moving away from its legislated task of providing poor people with free lawyers and began an [[activist]] agenda to influence [[public policy]] through [[class action lawsuit]]s. One case involved bringing lawsuits to force New York's Transit Authority to hire [[heroin]] addicts. The LSC also violated its own rules by organizing political campaigns against a state referendum and against Ronald Reagan. <ref>Michael Barone , [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone070899.asp ''Taking Hillary seriously], ''Jewish World Review'', July 8, 1999. </ref>

Hillary Clinton failed the District of Columbia [[Bar Exam]] in the 1970s.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200706010006 On Today, Bernstein omitted key fact in purported disclosure of Clinton's D.C. bar exam failure: It's not news], ''[[MediaMatters]]'' June 1, 2007. Retrieved from MediaMatters.org October 4, 2007.</ref>

==Accusations of Stolen Gifts==
When the Clintons left the White House, they were accused of taking furniture that belonged not to them, but to the White House. It was explained that the movers inadvertently packed the wrong items. Most of the articles were quietly returned. <ref>"Clinton Shipped Furniture Year Ago," Washington Post, February 10, 2001.</ref>

==Goldwater girl==

Speaking at [[Selma]], Alabama's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march Hillary Clinton declared: "As a young girl I had the great privilege of hearing [[Martin Luther King|Dr. King]] speak in Chicago. The year was 1963....[Dr. King] called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the [[civil rights]] pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." In her memoirs Hillary Clinton described herself in 1964 as "an active Young Republican" and "a [[Barry Goldwater|Goldwater]] girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit." Columnist [[Robert Novak]] observed, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined [[Solid South|Southern Democratic]] [[segregation]]ists opposing the historic [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights act of 1964]] inspired by King."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/03/12/hillary,_king_and_goldwater Hillary, King and Goldwater], by Robert D. Novak, [[Townhall.com]], March 12, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Hillary Clinton|Articles about '''Hillary Clinton''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==External links==
*[http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990809/kaminer Hillary's No Liberal], Wendy Kaminer, ''The Nation'', July 22, 1999 (August 9, 1999 issue).

{{liberalism}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Hillary Rodham}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:United States Senators|Clinton, Hillary Rodham]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-02T00:19:47Z

Adg2011: /* Same-Sex Marriage Section */

{{unprotected|29 December 2007 |Ed Poor}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

== Same-Sex Marriage Section ==

The article states "The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." [18] The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others."

I'm sure that the the readers and editors of Conservapedia would be against racist or sexist harassment and bullying, so why would it not be same case with LGBT students. The Constitution of the United States' 14th Amendment provides equal protection "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thus I believe that this section should be deleted or altered so that Conservapedia's tone remains neutral. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:You do realize that Conservapedia is officially a Christian & Conservative - friendly encyclopedia, and therefore does not strive, like Wikipedia for neutrality? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:55, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

::Because I believe there is a difference between conservatism and anti-constitutional thinking. One of the core values of the conservatism is the infallibility of the constitution. I do edit Wikipedia, by the way. Do you have an opinion on the subject, user ₮K?

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-01T22:44:09Z

Adg2011: /* Same-Sex Marriage Section */

{{unprotected|29 December 2007 |Ed Poor}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

== Same-Sex Marriage Section ==

The article states "The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." [18] The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others."

I'm sure that the the readers and editors of Conservapedia would be against racist or sexist harassment and bullying, so why would it not be same case with LGBT students. The Constitution of the United States' 14th Amendment provides equal protection "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thus I believe that this section should be deleted or altered so that Conservapedia's tone remains neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Adg2011]]

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-01T22:43:32Z

Adg2011: /* Same-Sex Marriage Section */

{{unprotected|29 December 2007 |Ed Poor}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

== Same-Sex Marriage Section ==

The article states "The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." [18] The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others."

I'm sure that the the readers and editors of Conservapedia would be against racist or sexist harassment and bullying, so why would it not be same case with LGBT students. The Constitution of the United States' 14th Amendment provides equal protection "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thus I believe that this section should be deleted or altered so that Conservapedia's tone remains neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Adg2011]]

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-01T22:42:25Z

Adg2011: /* Same-Sex Marriage Section */

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-01T22:42:03Z

Adg2011: Same-Sex Marriage Section

{{unprotected|29 December 2007 |Ed Poor}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article. {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

== Same-Sex Marriage Section ==

The article states "The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." [18] The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others."

I'm sure that the the readers and editors of Conservapedia would be against racist or sexist harassment and bullying, so why would it not be same case with LBBT students. The Constitution of the United States' 14th Amendment provides equal protection "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Thus I believe that this section should be deleted or altered so that Conservapedia's tone remains neutral.

ACLU

2008-04-01T20:55:13Z

Adg2011: /* Free Speech */

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, a [[leftist]], [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] organization. It was run for its first 30 years by an [[United States of America|American]] [[Socialism|socialist]] named [[Roger Baldwin]], who helped found it in 1920. This organization is devoted to protecting certain types of [[civil liberties]] of Americans and defending them in [[court]].

[[Image:ACLU and Islam.jpg|right|400px|It All Depends On Whose Church Is Being Separated]]

==Illegal Immigration==

The [[ACLU]] demanded $2.3 million in fees for challenging a law against [[illegal immigration]]. This demand "illustrates the circus the ACLU brought to this case," the Mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania said. "They had 20 attorneys sitting in the courtroom at a time, 16 of them doing nothing but running up the bill."<ref>http://www.centredaily.com/news/state/story/194756.html]</ref>

In the case the ACLU persuaded a [[federal]] [[court]] to declare a municipal ordinance to be unconstitutional.

==The Establishment Clause==
The ACLU often insists that the [[Establishment Clause]] of the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] requires censorship of religious expression. In 2007, for example, the [[ACLU]] of [[Tennessee]] sought to stop prayer and prayer-related activities by the volunteer [[Praying Parents]]. ''Doe v. Wilson County Sch. Sys.'', 524 F. Supp. 2d 964 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2007).

==Free Exercise Clause==
The ACLU has defended the religious rights of American citizens and residents on numerous occasions. See 'ACLU Defense of Freedom of Religious Practice and Expression' at the ACLU's website for 60 examples of Christians and 45 examples of non-Christians represented by the ACLU to protect their religious rights. <ref> http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html </ref>

===The Ten Commandments===
ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal displays of the [[Ten Commandments]] from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

===Other Religious Symbols===
In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

In 2007, the ACLU Foundation of Texas filed an [[amicus brief]] for removal of a longstanding monument to William Mosher outside Harris County Civil Courthouse because the statute contained a depiction of an open Bible. ''Staley v. Harris County'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9296 (5th Cir. 2007). The court ruled that Harris County must pay attorneys fees to the [[Americans United For Separation of Church & State]], which often appears along with the ACLU in demanding removal of religious symbols from government property and censoring criticism of evolution in public school.

The ACLU demanded that Los Angeles County remove a tiny cross from the Los Angeles County seal, even though the seal contained nearly a dozen symbols including the Greek goddess Pomona standing on the shore of the Pacific Ocean -- about which the ACLU did not complain. The seal also displayed other California motifs, including the Spanish galleon San Salvador, a tuna fish, a cow, stars representing the movie and television industries, the Hollywood Bowl, oil derricks, and a pair of engineering instruments to represent Los Angeles' contributions to industrial construction and space exploration. The cross was a tiny part of the seal. But Los Angeles County gave into the ACLU's demands and spent $700,000 to censor the cross and replace it on all official government documents, publications and signage.

The ACLU of Louisiana demanded that a school board stop allowing an invocation to be said at the beginning of its meetings. In ''[[Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd.]]'' (2007), an [[en banc]] [[Fifth Circuit]] dismissed the claim for lack of proof that anyone had been injured or even offended by hearing these invocations.

===Evolution===
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==The Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering known as the Boy Scout Jamboree; in 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this event.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree on government property for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

== Pornography ==

In [[Ashcroft v. ACLU]] (2004), the ACLU challenged and invalidated the [[Child Online Protection Act]], which would have required pornographers to take reasonable steps to restrict access by minors to porn on the Internet. The Act, which the Supreme Court struck down at the request of the ACLU, did not censor a single word or picture. It merely required the pornographers to screen their websites from minors, which can be done by credit card or other verification.

The ACLU often argues in favor of pornography before courts and administrative boards. Charles Rust-Tierney was an executive for the ACLU of Virginia who argued against the use of Internet filters on the computers at the Loudoun County Library Board:<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55983</ref>

:"The ACLU of Virginia urges the board to carefully consider a new Internet Use Policy that allows for maximum Internet access ...."

Rust-Tierney, who served as the Virginia ACLU president until 2005, was serving on its board of directors when he was arrested in February 2007 for possession of child pornography that a U.S. magistrate described as "the most perverted and nauseating and sickening type of child pornography" she ever had seen. The former Virginia ACLU president later entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to eight years in jail.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref>

==Same-sex Marriage==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Trans-gender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

Similarly, the ACLU of Florida sued the Okeechobee School Board to force it to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club at Okeechobee High School. Though the school objected to this club as a "sex-based" club, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to rule in its favor, and it will likely recover substantial attorneys fees at taxpayer expense. See ''Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. School Board of Okeechobee County'', 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25729 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 6, 2007).

==Abortion==
The ACLU is generally against laws that restrict access to [[abortion]], such as parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion and informed consent for the woman herself. ACLU attorneys have argued several cases in support of abortion. For example, the woman called "Jane Doe" in the [[abortion]] case of ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'' (1973) says "she was pressured by ACLU attorneys to opt for [[abortion]] and that the case was based on fraud."<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52210</ref>

==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]].<ref>During a question-and-answer session after a speech at Yale University, ACLU president Nadine Strossen stated that her organization has "defended the right of individuals to engage in polygamy," [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44977 World Net Daily] June 25, 2005</ref><ref>
The ACLU views freedom of religion and the establishment clause as inseparable: In order for people to have religious freedom, their government must neither endorse nor prohibit any religious position.[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16163prs19990716.html ACLU press release July 16 1999].</ref>

==Free Speech==

The ACLU is the single biggest legal advocate for pornography (see above), claiming that it is a form of [[free speech]]. Less significantly, the ACLU has also helped -- or not helped -- in the following cases:

*In 1978, the ACLU defended the right of the National Socialist Party of America (neo-Nazi) to march through Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago that is a community of a large number of Jewish people and Holocaust survivors. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the village to issue a permit for demonstration to the Nazi Party, which was never used, that was later upheld by the Supreme Court. The ACLU experienced a severe backlash over this case when membership dropped by 25% and plunged the organization $500,000 in debt. <ref> http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1978-2/1978-02-23-NBC-6.html </ref> <ref> http://www.acluprocon.org/ACLUHistory/HistoryTable.html</ref>

*On January 16, 2008, the ACLU issued a statement supporting Sen. Larry Craig(R-ID) to have his guilty plea to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct in a Minnesota airport restroom withdrawn on the basis that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. While not advocating sex in public bathrooms, the ACLU suggested the police have better means of enforcing laws instead of using entrapment. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.html</ref>

*In September 2000, the ACLU represented the North American Man/Boy Love Association when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, who was raped, tortured and murdered by two men, filed a $200 million federal lawsuit for wrongful death. John Roberts, the executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU stated, ''It's not a real popular case, but the First Amendment issues are clear.'' The case was dismissed on a technicality. A subsequent lawsuit filed against the murderers, who were not represented by the ACLU, was successful. Jeffrey Curley's father, Robert Curley, was sympathetic to the ACLU's opposition to his lawsuit. "I really do have a lot of respect for them, they are very consistent in who they defend. It takes a lot of nerve to defend the groups they have over the years. They have a lot of courage." <ref>http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2002/www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberfortytwo.htm</ref> <ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE0D91530F932A3575AC0A9669C8B63</ref>

*The ACLU has been involved with lawsuits filed against Attorney Generals Reno, Ashcroft and Gonzales when fighting the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Federal courts have consistently ruled COPA violates the constitutional protection of free speech and have forbidden enforcement by the federal government. The most current ruling on March 22, 2007 is being appealed.<ref> http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/copa/index.htm </ref>

*In 1949, the ACLU defended Father Arthur Terminiello, an ex-Catholic priest, who gave a speech at a rally in Chicago that was laced with racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Communist comments. Father Terminiello was fined $100 for violating Chicago's breach of peace ordinance. This fine was later reversed by the Supreme Court. <ref> http://www.comm.unt.edu/faculty/terminiello_v.htm</ref> <ref> http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html</ref>

*The ACLU of Nevada successfully defended the right of a street preacher, Jim Webber, to proselytize his pro-Jesus, anti-sin, and occasional anti-homosexual messages on the Las Vegas strip. The unsuccessful campaign conducted by the casinos failed and allowed Webber and others to stay. Webber is quoted as saying, "the ACLU has been my guardian angel. They have been the ones that have provided the ability for me to stand on the street and talk with people about Jesus Christ." <ref>http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=548951&page=1</ref> <ref>http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Mar-05-Sun-2006/news/6197557.html</ref>

==Prisoner and student rights==

In the 2007 case ''Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections'', the ACLU brought suit against the Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute following the prison's decision to bar Christian prisoner and lay minister Wesley Spratt from preaching to other inmates during weekly services. The ACLU won the case on appeal, securing the right for Spratt to hold religious services for other inmates so long as these do not conflict with prison security.<ref>ACLU: Appeals Court Overturns Ban on Christian Preacher in Rhode Island Prison (4/9/2007)[http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29578prs20070409.html]</ref>

In 2004, student Abbey Moler selected a bible verse to accompany her picture in a school yearbook. The school subsequently removed this text before publication. The ACLU filed suit against the Utica Community School District, on the grounds that this censorship violated Moler's first-amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion. The case was settled out of court, with the school district agreeing to replace the verse in following prints of the yearbook and correct it by means of a sticker in copies still in its possession.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref><ref> The settlement between the ALCU and the school district stated:
* The district will place a sticker with Moler's original entry in the copies of the yearbook on file with the school.
* The district has instructed the Stevenson High School yearbook staff not to censor students' yearbook entries solely because they contain religious or political speech that others might find offensive.
* The district recently provided and will continue to provide in-service training and advice to school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues that arise in school.
* The district will write a letter of regret to Moler apologizing for the failure to include her entry in the yearbook.</ref>

==Medical Records==

The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the privacy of Rush Limbaugh in his medical records when he was under investigation for 'doctor shopping.' The ACLU argued that the privacy rights of a patient were being violated.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html</ref>

== Terrorism ==

The ACLU has challenged the authority of the President to authorize wireless wiretaps of overseas communications without submitting to judicial oversight. In ''[[ACLU v. NSA]]'', the Court of Appeals for the [[Sixth Circuit]] rejected the ACLU's challenge.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==

Roger Baldwin, a co-founder of the ACLU and its first leader, was born and raised in Massachusetts. He said that his "social work began in my mind in the Unitarian Church when I was ten or twelve years old, and I started to do things that I thought would help other people.”

In the 1920 and 1930s he was sympathetic to the social goals and aspirations of the emerging communist nations. In 1934, Balwin published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

In 1940 he successfully fought to revise the ACLU charter to prohibit those affiliated with totalitarian organizations from serving on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn.

In 1947 General Douglas MacArthur arranged for Baldwin to serve as a civil liberties consultant in Japan.

==See Also==

*[[NAMBLA]]
*[[Fred Phelps]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/ACLU|Articles about the '''ACLU''' from previous "Breaking News" ]]
{{liberalism}}
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[category:liberal activists]]
[[category:Atheists]]

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-01T20:54:44Z

Adg2011: /* Free Speech Issues */

{{unprotected|29 December 2007 |Ed Poor}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible.

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article.

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-01T20:54:33Z

Adg2011: /* Free Speech Issues */

{{unprotected|29 December 2007 |Ed Poor}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible.

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::::http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article.

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-01T20:54:17Z

Adg2011: /* Free Speech Issues */

{{unprotected|29 December 2007 |Ed Poor}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible.

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article.

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-01T20:54:02Z

Adg2011: /* Free Speech Issues */

{{unprotected|29 December 2007 |Ed Poor}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible.

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698
I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article.

Talk:ACLU

2008-04-01T20:53:43Z

Adg2011: /* Free Speech Issues */

{{unprotected|29 December 2007 |Ed Poor}}
== "Rare example" and other problems ==

Is simply false. I can easily give you 20 examples the ACLU defending Christians. Furthermore, it is very difficult to claim that the ACLU was being anti-Christian or such in the Dover trial since part of the issue was the claim made by the defence that ID was not Christian in nature. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:01, 22 February 2007 (EST)

: Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here.

: In the Dover case the ACLU attacked Christian comments made by school board members. Again, be honest about the facts. ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists. There are rare counterexamples of little significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:13, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: Andrew, first of all note that I said I can '''easily''' give you 20. There are far more examples than that- 20 is the easy number to do. Second of all, I would tentatively suggest that even if your claim were accurate there is a simple explanation- the US is a country with a large Christian majority, it is therefore not at all surprising that the vast majority of violations of the first amendment and related issues occur where Christians are the one's whose views are being possibly establshed and thus invite the ACLU's ire. If the vast majority of the US were Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Flying Spaghetti Monsterish or Invisible Pink Unicornish then the ACLU would have the vast majority of its cases dealing with Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Flying Spaghetti Monsterers or Invisible Pink Unicornists. As to Dover, the ACLU never "attacked Christian comments" (in fact, the ACLU wasn't even the biggest player on the plaintiff's side but that's a separate issue) but rather pointed out that comments made by members of the school board and school district administration demonstrated motivations that under current precidents constituted strong evidence of an unconstitutional attempt to establish religion. An argument I may add, that a Republican, self-identifying "church-goer" and major support of Rick Santorum agreed with. As to your final claim that "ID is backed by Christians and typically opposed by atheists" I presume that Ken Miller would disagree as would Judge Jones again and as would many major Christian denominations and as would over 10,000 Christian clergy(as already pointed out to you). So yes, by all means, let's be honest. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
::(Incidentally, I find it amusing, I think that the ACLU does have serious biases and they can be not unreasonably be described as liberal and arguably anti-Judeo-Christian, but you are making such an incredibly weak argument for it that it isn't funny). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It's a known fact that the ACLU only takes "token" Christain cases to hide their true agenda. just because you can come up with 20 or 30 only proves my point when you look at the thousands and thousands of anti-Christian cases filed by them.

Also, do you deny that they regularly defend NAMBLA, and abortion factories?

: I don't think they defend "abortion factories" because there aren't any such thing- there are places which provide abortions and yes the ACLU does defend their right to do so. However, the ACLU has also defended the rights of anti-abortion protesters. And simply claiming that something is a "known fact" doesn't make it so. Furthermore, you clearly missed my point above about that given what the ACLU does the groups it defends will more often than not be the less popular ones. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:24, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Obvious Parody? ==

OK, so "hundreds of thousands" was a bit of an exaggeration, but the rest was absolutely correct. It is not a "parody" to mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests. Nor is it "parody" to discuss the simple, demonstrable fact of their anti-Christian agenda

Also, that 90% number is a fact - it was researched extensively by the Discovery Institute, which was properly cited in the article.

:Firstly, you didn't merely "mention that the ACLU defends NAMBLA, abortionists, and athiests." Your claims were far more specific. You claimed that the ACLU defends "the so-called "rights" of pedophiles to molest children." This is utterly false. The ACLU has never suggested or implied in any way that molesting children is a right, nor have they claimed that it is morally or legally acceptable. Their only defence of NAMBLA has been on free speech issues. You also claimed that the ACLU defend a 'right' "to remove and destroy all public references to the One True God, Jesus Christ." This is directly contrary to their stated position, which clearly identifies those public references which in their view are acceptable.

:Secondly, the DI does not make the claim you've made. Here's what they say:

::In fact, 90.9% (or 5,458 words) of Judge Jones’ 6,004- word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”

:You've taken that figure and applied it to the whole ruling, not just that one section. Furthermore, the DI never laid out an objective measure of what exactly constitutes 'virtually verbatim' - indeed, their standard appears to be 'we know it when we see it,' which is hardly reliable. This is a huge non-issue in any case, as Jones was simply following standard judicial practice.

:Finally, the section about legal fees is also wrong. The ACLU did not expend millions of dollars. Most of the costs were carried by the independent legal firm, Pepper Hamilton. Judge Jones did not order all legal expenses reimbursed; the award he made was considerably less than the costs incurred. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:00, 23 February 2007 (EST)

OK, the new section on Dover is marginally better, but still mostly wrong:

* It was not a 'typical' trial
* The judge did not copy 90% of the ACLU's brief
* <s>The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m</s>
* It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the <s>$1m</s> fees
* The judge did not prohibit mention of ID by teachers in the school
* The judge's order did not prevent appeal - how on earth ''could'' it?

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:55, 24 February 2007 (EST)

:Tsumetai, would you like me to post the order granting over $2m in legal fees? Would you believe it then? Would like to see how it was entered against the school board members personally in addition to the board? Would you like to see how the order prevented any appeal? I can obtain the order in pdf format and would be happy to post it if I can figure how ... and if you agree to reconsider your position.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Actually, you're correct on the amount; I tracked down a copy of the order myself. The reduction to $1M was due to a later agreement between the plaintiffs and the new school board, it seems. The order names only the Dover School District and its board of directors, however. So, I gladly withdraw my complaint about the amount, but I'm still concerned about the other points I raised. For future reference, I'm happy to reconsider any and all positions I hold, given sufficient evidence to the contrary. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:27, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: "It seems"??? The last order on the docket says over $2 million (Feb. 24, 2006). I'm open to any support you have for your claims, but so far you're not supporting them. Also, I'd be curious who think are the "board of directors" of the School District, if not the school board members.

::: In sum, all five of your factual statements above, alleging mistakes in the entry, are wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::The board of directors is an entity in itself, not a group of individuals. That is why when several board members were replaced in an election, it was the new board which had to approve the payment of fees, not the old one.

::::As to 'support,' only one of the claims I'm objecting to is actually cited, and the citation doesn't actually say what the article claims. You can baldly state I'm wrong all you want, but last I checked, the first commandment of this site mentioned verifiability. If you can't demonstrate that the claims the article makes are correct, they shouldn't be there. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)

== Plagiarism is unethical ==

The last two edits of this article were just copied straight out of wikipedia. In addition to the obvious issues of liberal bias in wikipedia (especially on a topic like the ACLU!!!!!!), there has to be some kind of copyright violation with that.

this is probably not going to help, but I do not believe wikipedia has a liberal bias. that said, at least they have more dependent editors. The sort of ridiculous phrases and number games played throughout this article should be disturbing to those for and against the aclu.

== Connection of ACLU michigan ==

ACLU michigan is listed as affiliated with the ACLU on the ACLU's webpage. This should be modified. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:05, 24 February 2007 (EST)

==notes==
Copying out of Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal, as it's open source. Also, I'm not sure I saw the statement about communism in the cited article. This article definitely needs some revision. [[user:John]]

: No, copying Wikipedia can only be done pursuant to the GFDL liscence which says roughly that full credit needs to be given to all prior contributors and that the copied or derivative content must be under the GFDL liscence also. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GFDL] for a summary and see the actual text [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License here]. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== The Baldwin statement is a mis-quote. ==

The following statrement needs to be re-worded. As it is written now, it's a misquote, and it's taken out of context:

''Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal."''

(1) '''The statement is one of Baldwin's, but it is improperly edited'''. His original comment was "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself...I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."(Source: p. 13 of "The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values" by Alan Sears)

(2) '''The statement is taken totally out of context'''. He wrote it in his Harvard University Classbook. he was not referring to the stated goals of the ACLU at all.

For these two reasons, the sentence is just a smear. Though it should be noted that Baldwin was an outspoken socialist, the above sentence needs to be replaced with the following:

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was founded by several notable Americans, including Roger Nash Baldwin, noted Socialist, civil libertarian and pacifist, and Hellen Keller, among others. Originally, it was two organizations, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, founded to defend people accused by the government of being communist spies, and the American Union Against Militarism, which opposed US Entry into the First World War. By 1920, the leaders of the two organizations merged into the American Civil Liberties Union, with Baldwin as it's president. The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".[1]

:: I've unprotected the page, but the self-serving description above does not objectively describe what the ACLU does. Maybe through the Wiki process something objective will result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes:
[1] [http://www.aclu.org/about/] (American Civil Liberties Union web site. ACLU. Retrieved on 3-6-2007)

Essentially, we need to keep opinions and slander out of the project. We just need to stick to facts, no matter how we feel about a subject or person. Injecting opinion and misleading, doctored quotes, cheapens the project.

:I have no knowledge of the Baldwin quote, whether it is true or not, but I followed the link that “supports” it, and noticed that the quote does not appear on the page the link takes me to. I’ve done a quick search for the quote and the only things I turn up are blogs that cite it as an example of “how funny” this site is, and posts that also cite the page linked from the article. That is, I can find no support for this quote at all. I would simply delete the quote as a fabrication, but, since the article is newly unlocked, I don’t want to be hasty in editing it. Can anyone find this quote in a reputable source? (I should note I don’t have access, at the moment, to the source supporting the alternative version of the quote, but I can’t find it attested to on any website.)--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 20:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: Not only is it a mis-quote, but it ignores the fact that Baldwin purged the ACLU of suspected Communists in the late 1940s. This quote is superfluous to the article as a whole.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: The quote supported by the citation. Many other citations on the internet confirm the quote. Are you saying a word should not be capitalized, or that some other trivial change should be made? I don't think Baldwin ever disclaimed the quote, and it was even printed in a Harvard reunion book. Nothing superfluous about it, either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:24, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::The words in the quote do not appear on the page used to support the quote. That is my objection. If there is a direct quote and then a citation to support that direct quote the page should have the quote on it—it would be nice if the page gave the context of the quote and some reason to believe it is true, but at the bare minimum I think the quote should appear on the page. I have searched the page and the words “Communism”, “abolition”, “abolishing”, “disarmament”, “ownership”, and “propertied” appear nowhere on the page. The word “socialism” does once, but not in the context of a quote from Baldwin. In point of fact neither the word “Roger” nor the word “Baldwin” appears on the page.
::If the quote is true, there should be a link to a page with the quote—if no page with the quote can be found I think the quote should come down. But, at the very least, the citation should be changed.
::I have, as I noted before, looked for a better place to cite to support this quote, but have been unable to find one.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:::This quote still does not appear on the page being used as a reference supporting it (and no one has provided a citation that actually supports the quote). Why is it still there?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: The quote appears nowhere in the citation used to support it. Baldwin said this before he ever started the ACLU. And as I pointed out, he purged the ACLU of Communists in the 1940s. How sympathetic could he still be towards that viewpoint if he kicked Communists out of the ACLU? The quote is not being used to butress a fact but is being misrepresented in order to portray the ACLU in a negative light. I would think there are plenty of legitimate ways to do that, rather than playing fast and loose with this quote.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Basic Writing Errors==
-"More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million" There is a tense change here. Fix it.
-There's no need to mention that Roger Baldwin is non-Christian; it's 100% inconsequential.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 12:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Basic legal errors ==

Your discussion of Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320 is utterly flawed. I'll cite from the case: "In vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts."

Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 449 F.3d 1320, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006)

In stating that the Selman case had been overturned, you make *GLARING* and rookie legal error. Vacating a case and remanding it is different from overturning it, a difference underscored by the fact that the opinion vacating the lower court's order explicitly stated that it passed no judgment on the legal theory of the case, only stating that the evidence for appellate review was too scanty!!

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary. It is NOT. Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter. Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal. District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts. That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Folks, the edits to this content page removed much factual information and replaced it with 50-year-old, unsupported claims. This is Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. At this rate the page will need to be locked again. But I'll wait in case someone wants to correct this first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:42, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Asch, what was posted were not facts. They were misconstructions, exaggerations, and embellishments that fail to take account of the way the law actually works. You're an attorney, you should know that Costs are almost always awarded, and you should know the difference between vacating and reversing a case, too!!--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::: That is FALSE. Sometimes you're right, it is a reversal. However the SPECIFIC HOLDING of the appellate division was that it did not reverse or pass judgment on the legal issue. It merely remanded to seek facts, thus VACATING AND REMANDING, not REVERSING.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:26, 9 March 2007 (EST)
== Kitzmiller Discussion wrong ==
The opinion did not prevent appeal. What probably prevents appeal is that it would be a losing case and there is a new board there. Furthermore, this was not a free excercise case, but an establishment clause case. You should also mention that the order for costs is according to federal law on constitutional rights. Further, you should link to the opinion so people can read it for themselves. It is hosted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Geo.plrd] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 02:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I've gone over the Kitzmiller opinion again. I suggest any admins take a read through as well, paying particular attention to 400 F. Supp.2d at 723-25, where the Court has some discussion of the ''Selman'' opinion. I bring these pages to your attention because they are characteristic of the opinion's use of the ''Selman'' decision - it does '''not''' "heavily rely" upon ''Selman'', but rather, when citing it at all, it uses it as one of a number of "string citations," not as sole authority. Further, when it cites it at all, it is in support of a minor proposition, not a major tenet of constitutional law. For its major propositions, it cites exclusively to the ''Lemon'' test and the endorsement test, both of which - no matter how much you may personally hate them - are established Constitutional law.

: I suggest that you edit the ACLU article to reflect the low importance that ''Selman'' plays in ''Kitzmiller'', rather than continue to mislead your viewing public about Judge Jones' supposed reliance on it.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::In fact, the court couldn't "heavily rely" on Selman, because that was another district court decision with no precedential value. Even the vacating of Selman wouldn't have precedent for a PA district court, they're in different circuits. Do they teach about those in homeschool? [[User:Lawrah|Lawrah]] 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:I added the link to the opinion [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== In anticipation ==

RSchlafly, I look forward to another edit war with you. These always end with you getting confused, and then me getting banned for a day. Anywho, my version of this article is superior. Yours is full of bias words like "merely," et al, while mine gives the actual cited legal analysis and purpose of the stickers. Settle it here.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:Lessee... random poster vs relative of the guy who runs the site. In the words of Ho Chih Zen, "Grasshopper always wrong in argument with chicken." --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 17:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it a bit to reflect what it really says, I'd phrased it wrong, apologies.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit is wrong, misleading, and destructive, as usual. If something is wrong with the text, then please explain it here.
: Your version has several errors. You say that the lawsuit was "for attempting to teach evolution as a theory", but that is misleading. As the reference said, the lawsuit was just over "Stickers Put in Evolution Text". Then you said that the school was endorsing creationism. Again, this is false. The stickers did not say anything about creationism. Then you cited the trial court as if it had the last word on the subject, but in fact that decision was vacated by a higher court. It is extremely dishonest to say that the court did something, when in fact that court was overruled on appeal. Thus there was nothing in your edit that was actually correct.
: I do think that you should be banned for repeatedly making obstructionist edits like this. If you've really been to law school then you should know how improper it is to cite a vacated trial court opinion without at least saying that it was overruled on appeal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::First, I am enrolled at the #4 national law school and I can tell you for a fact that, having taken Civil Procedure from one of the century's best litigating attorneys, the term "vacate" is highly context-dependent. The legal effect of the trial court holding is not always overruled by an order vacating the trial court order. In the ''Selman'' case, which I have read (I assume you've read the "Discovery Institute" special reports on it, typos and all), the 5th Circuit vacated the holding as a result of the fact that the evidentiary record was not complete enough to allow an appeal yet. The court explicitly stated in the order vacating the lower court's holding that '''''it passed no judgment on the merits of the lower court's opinion''''', rather finding insufficient evidence to judge this fact.
::Learn to read primary sources, learn to distrust the Discovery Institute, and then put these findings into fact by making useful edits. Until you read the ''Selman'' case and the appellate record, you should not edit a description of it. This is basic common sense and professional courtesy. I assume that you wouldn't lampoon a colleague's mathematical proof without reading it, would you? Then do the Georgia Federal District Court the same courtesy.
::Until you present findings to the contrary based on analysis of primary sources, I am reverting & modifying the article.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:41, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Instead, I just deleted that paragraph; it belongs in the Establishment Clause section, but it's already mentioned there. I clarified the footnote to explain the actual appellate record. Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:45, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: AmesG, your edit was wrong on all 3 counts. Are you conceding that or not? I don't care where you are going to law school, I don't want to citing vacated opinions as if they were good law. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:11, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Brother, you didn't answer any of my points. Speak to the points, specifically this quotation: "in vacating the district court's [**49] judgment and remanding the case for additional proceedings, we want to make it clear that we do not intend to make any implicit rulings on any of the legal issues that arise from the facts once they are found on remand. We intend no holding on any of the legal premises that may have shaped the district court's conclusions on the three Lemon prongs. Mindful that in this area factual context is everything, we simply choose not to attempt to decide this case based on a less than a complete record on appeal or fewer than all the facts." (449 F.3d 1320, 1338). Until you answer that point, it will be reverted again. And if you protect it rather than answer any of these compelling points, that you simply drop, you will continue to look like a fool.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, instead of mindlessly reverting, note that on your suggestion I noted the procedural posture of the case, thoroughly and accurately, in footnote. Isn't that accurate & fair?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: I just reverted and protected the page. I did not do so mindlessly; I did so because you repeatedly and willfully removed good text from the page and inserted false statements. I gave you 3 reasons why your edit was false on this Talk page, and you have ignored them. Was the old text true or false? Was your text true or false?
: Now you say that you will continue to revert it until I address some quote from the appeals court. I was the one who said that the appeals court vacated the trial court. Your quote backs up what I said. What else is there to say?
: Your latest edit says, "re-instating lower court order". Do you have a source for this? Can you show me some document from the court saying that the lower court order was reinstated? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
No, no, obviously you know more about law then me. That's just fine. Obviously your analysis of "Vacate" must be more accurate than someone who actually studies law, why should I worry? Also, I'm glad you reverted to keep the shoddy, poorly-thought-out, incoherent structure, and the separation between "ACLU and Evolution" and "ACLU and the Establishment Clause." That division makes ''good sense''. Great job, Roger! Ignoring experts and degrading writing - shucks, time to call it a day!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
: And the order wasn't re-instated; it would have been, as the trial went the same way, but settlement was reached out of court leading to the exact same solution. So the stickers were removed without a court order: same result, [http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=8797&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241 as you can see here].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I guess you are admitting that your edit that said "re-instating lower court order" is also incorrect. That makes 4 errors in only a couple of lines of text that you inserted.
:: It doesn't matter if you are the world's greatest legal expert. That doesn't mean you can insert factual errors into the article. It amazes me that you would continue to insert errors after the errors have been pointed out to you on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]

Perhaps saying, "allowing the court order to stand" makes more sense to you than "re-instating the lower court order." Whichever way you cut it, it's more accurate than your statement is. If you want me to count your errors, I'd be thrilled to, though. First, you misunderstood the subtleties of "vacate." Second, you misstated the holding of the lower court to begin with, or rather, didn't address it. Those are two biggies. What are the other three that I made? But Roger, setting aside my disrespect for you intellectually, and setting aside your anger at me, let's face it - my version, with a slight revision now, is still a better statement of the truth than yours is. It's also better formatted. Re-instate my version, but noting that the court order was "allowed to stand," if not "re-instated," if the distinction makes you more comfortable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've both learned from each other, Roger, making my edits on the whole positive! Now insert what you learned.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:15, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The word "vacate" is not even in the article. If there is something wrong with the article, go ahead and explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
I have some problems with the “ACLU and Evolution” section of this article. The first is a minor one and should be easily corrected—the sentence in question starts with a quotation mark, suggesting that the sentence is taken directly from the source, but the sentence is not and so the opening quotation mark should be deleted. Second, the use of the word “merely” is argumentative and should probably be deleted for that reason alone. Third, the use of the word “merely” is false, as the stickers in question had more text than is quoted. (The article referenced indicates the stickers also had the words “a theory, not a fact” on them and from reading the article I can tell there are additional unquoted words on these stickers). Fourth, the articled does not say that the ACLU sued, but rather that the ACLU represented those who did sue – upset parents (a minor point but one that should be corrected). Fifth, the sentence carries the strong implication that the ACLU is engaged in fighting this case simply because it is dogmatically committed to evolution, but the article sighted suggests the ACLU is fighting the case because they believed that the stickers were motivated, in part or in whole, by religious dogma which the ACLU (rightly or wrongly) believes may not motivate what is taught in the schools – that is they objected to the stickers not because of the content alone, but the motivation behind the stickers. Since this article is locked, I request that someone with the authority to make these changes do so.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
: I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ah, but facts don't matter! The ideology must remain supreme!!--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 09:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] -
(1) There are mismatched quotation marks, which should both be removed.
(2) "merely" should be removed - readers may draw their own conclusions as to whether the action was warranted, which will likely depend on how they feel about church/state issues, a question on which Christians do not all agree,
(3) the entire text of the stickers should be included. The stickers said "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> I think the entire text of the stickers should be included in the article - it's brief enough, and that way the facts are clearer.
(4) The ACLU's role should be stated more precisely,
(5) the ACLU's arguments should be described more accurately, preferably in their own words.
(6) I also think there should be link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, so that students may read his decision for themselves. Primary sources are critical when trying to understand cases like this, and when striving for academic excellence students should settle for nothing less. Let's help them find what they need so that they can excell. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]. However I still have a few concerns. First, the source cited does not give the full source of the stickers, so a new source should be given. Second, the sentence should indicate that the ACLU filed suit on behalf of parents in the district—this gives the full story and prevents the misconception that the ACLU comes in from the outside and makes trouble where it is not wanted (a charge frequently leveled against them). Third, leaving this in its own subheading still leaves the impression that this is, for the ACLU, a separate issue from the Establishment Clause. The ACLU participated in this suit because they oppose policy choices motivated by religion not because they are dogmatic evolutionists—leaving this case on its own—especially without giving the ACLUs motivation—gives a false impression.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:19, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for your comments. I'd like to stick to documented facts. Do you have any proof of the ACLU's motivation? In particular, how do you know that the ACLU is more interested in religion than evolution, and that the ACLU didn't just come in from the outside and make trouble?
: It seems to me that the ACLU filed in behalf of itself as much as the parents. No one sued without the ACLU. The ACLU could have found other parents if they had to. If parents sued without the ACLU and the ACLU came in later, then you would have a point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::I will see what I can find about motivations, and will post when I have. However, the ACLU cannot sue “in behalf of itself”—it lacks standing and would have been thrown out of court in a second. If you are serious about sticking to the facts, the article here should be changed to recognize the fact that the ACLU filed on behalf of the parents—the reference supporting this section says as much.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Saying that the ACLU sued in behalf of the parents suggests that the parents were the only beneficiaries of the lawsuit. But the terms of the lawsuit were such that any monetary award would go to the ACLU, and not the parents. So I could mention the parents, but then I think that I'd have to also mention that the ACLU was going to get all the money itself. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Ok. So, if any money was awarded in the case (and my understanding is that any money awarded would go to cover legal costs and not damages), note where the money went. Of course, recovering the money spent in litigating a suit (especially if, as I gather is usual, only part of the costs are recovered) is not a benefit (which would make the ACLU not a beneficiary) as they would not be financially better off than when they started. But, I don’t see anything wrong with noting that there was cost recovery and the extent of cost recovery. The article used as a reference doesn’t say anything about awards and I gather the case was eventually settled voluntarily without any damages being awarded. So, I, to date, have seen nothing indicating a financial award at all (and certainly nothing about a financial benefit).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't know whether there was a monetary award in the case or not, so I'd rather not speculate until we get the facts. But it is reasonable to assume that money was a motivator for both sides.
::: I disagree with you about saying that ACLU would not have been a beneficiary. The ACLU commonly collects fees as well as costs in cases like this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Recovering costs (which you are absolutely right they often do) is not a benefit, it does not put the ACLU in a financially better position than they were in before the case began, if they recover all costs (a rarity at best) they are in the same position they were before the case began (not taking into account the time value of money or inflation). I’m also not sure why we can assume money was a motivator for both sides, the ACLU is a not-for-profit entity and I’ve never seen anyone claim that they are driven by a profit motive (I’ve seen lots of accusations about their motives, but that is not one I’ve ever heard).
::::But we are getting off track, the sources used in this article clearly support the claim that the suit was brought on behalf of the parents, you do not to want to include that information because the ACLU may have benefited as well—I fail to see why the latter claim would preclude including the former fact, but even if the latter claim would preclude including the former fact failure to include the former fact now is acting as if the latter claim is true—that is, it is acting on speculation, which is exactly what you want to avoid.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Motivations: Here is a press release that indicates what the ACLU claims its motive was, and which supports my reading of their motivation, http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html . --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't see how that ACLU press release supports your claims about the ACLU's motivations. It doesn't say whether it recruited the parents to be plaintiffs, and it doesn't say whether the ACLU collected a monetary award. You said the ACLU's motivation was not that they were "dogmatic evolutionists". But the press release brags about how it is a victory for evolution, and how it had a victory for evolution in another case. It says practically nothing about religious issues. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The relevant passages are:
:::::“In 2005, the district court sided with the ACLU, stating that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” –using the language of one of the key establishment clause tests and emphasizing the religious motivation of the sticker.
::::And
:::::“The settlement brings to an end a long battle to keep our science classes free of political or religious agendas” – quoting the lead parent on the case and emphasizing the religious motivation behind the stickers.
::::I think you are reading too much into the press release, it never uses the phrase “victory for evolution” and in referencing the Dover case it reaffirms that the issue was the establishment clause (as that case was fought entirely on establishment clause grounds).
::::As far as the monetary issue goes, I was only pointing to this for evidence of motive. I had posted it before you had even begun suggesting that the real motive was money which still strikes me as an odd claim – and which I see no evidence for.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I am reading too much into the ACLU press release? Okay, let me know whether you find any real evidence of ACLU motives. I'd like to stick to facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Fact: the ACLU sued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was argued on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: the case was decided on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release I pointed to grouped the case with a second case which the ACLU sued, argued, and won on Establishment Clause grounds.
::::::Fact: The press release is on the “Religion and Belief” section of the ACLU page.
::::::Add all that to the quotes above and I feel I’ve made a fairly strong case.
::::::But, I did a bit more research and found a second press release from the ACLU<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html] </ref>. In this earlier press release the ACLU makes clear that they see the stickers as a response to an unsuccessful attempt to ban the teaching of evolution altogether on religious grounds. They go on to state that the stickers are designed to endorse a religious belief, and then to point out that the teaching of creationism has been ruled unconstitutional (they don’t point out, as it doesn’t need to be pointed out in their press release that the reason creationism can’t be taught in schools is not that the Supreme Court loves evolution, but because they see it as a violation of the Establishment Clause). The press release has at the bottom of it a link to the ACLU’s pre-trial brief in this case <ref>Plaintiff's Pretrial Brief, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref>, which also provides strong support that this case was motivated by Establishment Clause concerns.
::::::I hope that is sufficient support for this point.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For an egregious claim like, "The ACLU recruited the plaintiffs," the burden of proof is on you, Rogy, not us.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:36, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for addressing my points 1, 2, and 3 (see above, originally raised by [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]) in your edits. I think this section is much improved. However, I have a few other concerns. As to (3), there needs to be a citation that actually includes the text on the stickers, preferably one that is on-line. Here is one possibility. <ref>Judge: Evolution stickers unconstitutional,
Markers in science textbooks violated church-state separation[http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/]</ref> (4) "The ACLU filed a lawsuit", I could be wrong but isn't that like saying "Lawyer Smith filed a lawsuit", when the client is Mr. Jones? Again, let's be precise as to the ACLU's role. (5) From what I've read, in the article [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] cited and in the judge's decision, it does seem like the ACLU (as well as the judge) saw this case as an Establishment Clause issue, as well as a problem with the Georgia Constitution's Separation of Church and State clause. The title "ACLU and Evolution" might make more sense as a subtitle within the "ACLU and the Establishment Clause" section, though I don't know if that is possible, format-wise. Lacking that option, I think this paragraph needs to be put in the Establishment section, with the Evolution header eliminated. It would also read better there, as the Establishment section already refers to the case (Selman v. Cobb County). Another option would be to separate each case in the Establishment heading into its own section, but I like the Establishment heading as that is the general principle that relates these cases. (6) In addition, let me again urge you to insert a link to the judge's findings in Selman v. Cobb County (here is one <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>), so that students may read his decision for themselves. Since it is easily available on-line, there is really no reason not to include this essential source for anyone who is trying to understand the case. It would be extremely useful for students who are studying the case. Also, here is a link to the Kitzmiller decision that should be added to our article. <ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf]</ref> It is long but well worth reading. (7) One more suggestion, if I may. Six of the references have only the link title. If the title of the page or article was included inside the reference tags, (ideally after the first ref tag but before the bracket that starts the link), it would show up in the reference section, making it easier for interested students to decide which references they'd like to read. It should be fairly quick work to insert these titles. Thank you for your attention to these issues. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

: I can add text to add detail, but I have some problems with your suggestions. The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::The standard language of the Establishment Clause (or one set of standard language) is that the government may not send the message to one religious group “you are insiders” and send the message to other groups “you are outsiders”. The ACLU, here, complained that the stickers sent the message to Biblical Literalists the “you are insiders” and the message to believers in evolution “you are outsiders”, the sought remedy was not to switch who got which message, but to prevent either message from being sent.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I combined the evolution cases in one section, and added a couple of sentences on ACLU motivation. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure what to make of the new section—it seems to incorporate a number of your unsupported assertions about the ACLU’s motivation and to confuse the points that I was trying to make. I assume this is because I was less than clear about my concerns in my discussion. I will try again in a new section below (I’m going to start a new section of the talk page, to try to be very clear about what the issues I see are).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution v. 2.0==
The current version of the section “ACLU and Evolution” has a number of problems that I would like to see fixed. I’ve tried to separate the concerns I have out into individual points so that they can be discussed on a point by point basis.
#The reference for the first sentence does not contain the full text of the sticker, which means it does not contain the direct quote it is alleged to contain. The reference should therefore be changed. I believe that a commentator above linked to a reference that would support the full text—if that is the case the suggested reference should be placed where the incorrect reference currently is.
#The second sentence contains the word “ostensibly” suggesting that there were hidden motives. However, no credible source has been proposed, let alone given, for the existence of those hidden motives.
#The description of the parents as “indignant” in the second sentence downplays the harm alleged and ascribes to the parents a mental state that I have seen no source for. I would suggest replacing “indignant parents” with “parents of students who would have been exposed to the sticker”.
# The phrase “but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” (especially after “ostensibly”—see above) is used to suggest a motive for the ACLU that no source has been suggested for let alone provided to support. It should be removed for that reason.
#The phrase ““but any monetary award would have been paid to the ACLU” is (as far as I can tell) false. In the Dover case most of the recovered costs went to Pepper Hamilton, and there as here, the ACLU filed alongside a number of other entities. In general, the recovery is – at the very least – split between entities, and generally more of the cost recovery goes to the corporate firm on the case than the not-for-profit. The first ACLU press release indicates that there were 2 law firms and 1 other not for profit on the case with them.
#The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph is inaccurate proceeding a direct quote the press release “said” or the ACLU “said” would be more accurate and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
# The word “suggested” in the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph combined with the other problematic language of the paragraph adds to the unsupported suggestion of sinister and hidden ulterior motives and so it should be replaced on those grounds.
#The phrase “to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders” is inaccurate, as explained above—Evolutionists as outsiders is not a cognizable harm, Biblical Literalists as insiders is. The phrasing I would like to see here is “to prevent the school board from endorsing a particular religious message” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Creationism” or “to prevent the school board from endorsing Biblical Literalism”.
#The last sentence of the first paragraph, “But the ACLU may have also been in the case just for a million-dollar judgment”, is used to support the existence of an alleged motive that there is no suggestion of anywhere in any of the sources provided. It also perpetuates the misunderstandings about awards in these cases discussed above.
#The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph currently reads “cited on”, that should be replaced with “relied on” or “cited”.
#The reference supporting the last sentence of the last paragraph cites to the US law that would justify the judge’s award, but does not support the specific claim of “over $2,000,000”, a more accurate reference should be found.
#The last sentence of the last paragraph is misleading as the paragraph never mentions who the plaintiffs in the case were—again they were local parents, not the ACLU—and as it never mentions that the award used to pay costs was divided among all the representatives of the plaintiff (again the majority, here, went to Pepper Hamilton).

I think that covers my concerns about the section as it stands; thank you for taking the time to read it and consider my concerns.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Reginod, you and Hsmom asked me to include text on the ACLU motives. I was reluctant, because the evidence for ACLU motives is indirect. But I included it, and now you complain about it! In response:
#The suggested reference was out of date.
#The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that.
# Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't.
# The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money
it suggests that he wants money.
# Okay, I'll change to "paid to the ACLU and its lawyers".
# I said "suggested" because the press release does not explicitly say what the ACLU motives were.
# I let the reader decide for himself whether the motives were sinister.
# I copied that language from the ACLU press release. Maybe you disagree with it, but the
article refers to ACLU motives, not what you think that the motives ought to have been.
# Yes, the ACLU may have just wanted the money. Do you dispute that? Does the ACLU deny it?
I still don't know how much the ACLU made on the deal, but it made $2M on the Kitzmiller case.
# You are right. Fixed.
# Okay, if you have a good cite, I'll add it.
# You are right. I changed it to "ACLU lawyers", as the plaintiffs did not get the money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

***[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thanks for all the time you are spending to try to improve this article. I'm glad I am able to be of help. Here is a little input on your previous comments.

:--The CNN story is out-of-date, and gives the wrong impression about the outcome of the case. I understand your concern. Let's choose another on-line reference which contains the text. The decision in the original case <ref>Selman v. Cobb County [http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> would do, but there are probably many others to choose from. If you choose a NYTimes article, please post the URL for those who wish to read it.

:--The trial court decision would be misleading without also having the appeals court decision. Agreed. Let's have both. And here is the agreement that ended the case. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District[http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> And here is an Amicus brief <ref>Selman v. Cobb County School District,
Amicus Curiae of Several Pro-Evolution Groups[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/citizensforscience.html]</ref>.

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. The Establishment clause *is* about religious freedom. Establishment cases are religious freedom cases. The Establishment clause prevents the American Government from establishing an official state religion (and thus implying that only the official state religion is legit, and implying that other religions are lesser and/or false).

:--Even the ACLU press release does not claim that it was motivated by religious freedom. It cites a complaint that "the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders." This makes it sound like the ACLU may have been motivated to send a message that evolutionists are political insiders. I know this wording sounds kind of wierd. It *is* hard to understand - it's in "lawyer-speak", which doesn't always translate well to the rest of us. I believe this language comes from previous court decisions, and is about how to tell when the Establishment clause is being violated. I think you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are definately referring to religious freedom when they are relying on the Establishment clause.

:--I suppose that I can add a comment about the ACLU motivations, but I am not sure what the point would be. The ACLU was motivated to help out with the case because part of their mission is to argue cases where they believe the Establishment clause is being violated. They may or may not have had other motivations, but this is clearly their primary motive. Quite simply, it's one of the primary missions of the organization.

:--The lawsuit was not just to benefit the parents. Even the ACLU says that. Do you have some evidence that the parents were harmed, besides just being indignant? There weren't. The lawsuit was to benefit the *children* - to prevent them from being exposed to state-sponsored religious messages.

:--The ACLU did ask for money for itself. I am stating a fact. Yes, when someone asks for money it suggests that he wants money. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to address this part of the topic today. Suffice it to say that there are many such non-profit organizations which take on cases to advance their beliefs, without charging their clients by the hour for their time. As an example, HSLDA (the Home School Legal Defense Association), takes on cases on behalf of homeschooling families where the HSLDA believes the govenment is behaving unconstitutionally towards the homeschoolers. In such cases, it is normal for the court to award legal fees to the winner, to be paid by the loser. This method helps the "little guy" be able to sue when his rights are being stepped on, and also helps make sure that organizations like ACLU and HSLDA only take on cases where they have a good chance of winning (because otherwise their investment is lost).--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I fear that for the most part I am unsatisfied with the responses given so far. I shall, therefore, take a second stab at explaining my points and my continued dissatisfaction. I believe that most of my concerns (and all of my concerns about the first paragraph) would be corrected by adopting the version proposed by [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] in “ACLU and Evolution v. 3.0” below, but I think until that paragraph is adopted it is worth explaining my positions again.
::# That there is not a good reference available for a point does not excuse the use of a false reference. A direct quote has to be in the reference used to support it. If you don’t have a reference with the direct quote in it the thing to do is not to leave the quote in with a reference to an article many people won’t bother to look at on the assumption that you are right. To leave a reference in the article that you have been repeatedly been told does not support the direct quote (and that you can easily confirm does not support the direct quote) is, at best, dishonest.
::# If the ACLU says they did it for other reasons then “ostensibly” is false, the phrase you want there is “among other reasons” (feel free to list any motive the ACLU actually said it had—with a reference).
::# The court heard the case. Indignation is not a cognizable harm. Therefore there was more harm than mere indignation. Further—they alleged a violation of their constitutional rights, that is more harm then simple indignation, it is an infringement on their liberty, a grave harm.
::#There are three problems with your response here. First, people often ask for things without being motivated by them—this is a common negotiating technique, ask for more than you want then settle for what you actually want. Second, you have yet to provide any support for your claim that the ACLU asked for money after a discussion this long if it was a clear fact you could provide a reference for it. Third, I think that what they asked for was reimbursement, which is a very specific kind of money (the kind that can’t motivate a rational actor), and so your claim is misleading at best.
::# This should not read “the ACLU and its lawyers” it should read “the ACLU and other organizations and firms representing the plaintiffs”. Pepper Hamilton is its own firm, which worked the case alongside the ACLU, but not for it.
::# You provide a direct quote, that gets a “said” not a “suggested”. If they never came out and said it, how could you provide a direct quote?
::# Letting the reader decide entails not pushing him to the conclusion you want. Neutral language lets the reader decide the language you have included pusses a conclusion.
::# If copped from the press release it deserves a direct quote. But, either way you copped only half of the context. The full quote in the press release, which comes from the court ruling, is “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” Which clearly points to the religious aspect of this ruling—for all the reasons mentioned above.
::# You are quite right the sentence “The ACLU may have just wanted the money” is literally true—for any entity capable of wanting it is possible that they just want money—but this is a vacuous claim because it applies to every one. “But Pat Robertson may just be in it for the money” – literally true, undeniably so, but it doesn’t belong in his article. “But the NRA may just be in it for the money” “But Isaac Newton may have just been in it for the money” etc. All literally true—it is possible that they were only motivated by greed, not probable or likely, but possible. Vacuous claims like this do not belong in any article on this site.
::# Thank you.
::# The burden is on the person making the claim to support it, not on the person asking for support. This is especially true for very specific claims, as are now in the article. If I look up the section of US code sighted I will not find that in this case over $2,067,000 was awarded. As is the reference does not support this clam and it should be taken out until someone provides a better source.
::# Not all the money went to “ACLU lawyers” as explained above, much went to Pepper Hamilton lawyers who do not work for the ACLU.
::I hope that makes my concerns clearer. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Out of the closet ==

Well, I'm willing to cut the ACLU a check if they ''are'' dogmatic evolutionists who troll the country for good cases. I just thought I should make that clear. That being said, this site is a good place for open debate about the issue. However, factually speaking, that is NOT the primary mission of the ACLU. --[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Million Dollar Fees" ==

Saying that the ACLU "may have just been in it for the million dollar fees" is preposterous. It's a not-for-profit that uses judgments to cover the costs it incurs, which are substantial. That statement on the article is characteristic of your POV-problem, Roger, but it's particularly egregious, even for you. It should be removed.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you have some evidence to the contrary? The ACLU asked for big fees in the case, and got them in the Kitzmiller case. I can document that. Yes, the ACLU is not-for-profit, but a not-for-profit can still take an action for money. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Again, since your claims are particularly egregious, they are the ones that need citations and support, not mine. If I say "the sky is blue" but you say "the sky is green & pink," the burden of proof is on you.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 14:13, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Do you know whether the ACLU got paid fees in the settlement? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fees, yes, pursuant to the rules of procedure (28 U.S.C. 1988, cite's on this page already!!!!). But fees are different than damages. Damages were not available in the specific cause of action (Est. Clause violation enforced by 28 U.S.C. s 1983). Your change to the article is '''''less misleading''''' which is a step forward. However, you should delete the entire line about "however, they did not mention etc etc." It makes them sound like legal pirates, collecting surplusage fees, when in fact the awarding of fees is heavily restricted to actual, productable costs of litigation. The ACLU makes no "profit" from suits!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: So how much did the ACLU collect? Why doesn't the ACLU say? Is it ashamed? I'd like to stick to facts here, but all I know is that the ACLU tried to get millions of dollars, and got some unspecified amount that the ACLU wants to keep secret. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

All of this is argumentative, unfactual, and unencyclopedic. That's all that needs to be said, and it needs to be deleted. If you'd "like the facts" to include in the article, by all means, hunt them down, but until you have more than nonfactual, argumentative allegations of a nonprofit organization acting like a pirate, delete the sentence or at least put a <nowiki>{{fact-political}}</nowiki> tag on it!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: You should add "pursuant to standard practice by 42 U.S.C. s 1988," because it's standard practice.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I just found the figure. ACLU collected $166k in the settlement. I added the figure. Now it is all factual and sourced. Now we have both Cobb County school decisions and the final outcome of the case, as well as the ACLU's claimed motivation from its own press release. Are you happy now? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes! Much better. I would add, though, that 42 U.S.C. 1988 routinely provides for fees in all 1983 actions.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU & Evolution v. 3.0==

Putting together various comments and concerns raised here by a number of different people, I have drafted a version of the Selman paragraph. Here is my reasoning, and the final product. I have put the citations only in the final version.

:The ACLU filed a lawsuit, Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., against a school district in Cobb County Georgia, Let's change this to "In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District." It makes it clear that the parents, not the ACLU, were the plaintiffs, eliminates some redundancy, brings in the date of the suit, and reads smoother.

:for putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." This is fine, but to fit with the changes above, and to bring in the name of the suit and its basis, let's alter it to be a new sentence saying "In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

:The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. This sentence essentially says "The lawyers filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, but any attorneys fees awarded will be paid to the attorneys." Since this applies to any suit where lawyers represent plaintiffs, and where attorneys fees are awarded, and since we are only writing a brief description of the lawsuit, this sentence *only* makes sense if the fees awarded were in some way out of the ordinary, which doesn't seem to be the case. We have made it clear in the above sentences that ACLU filed on behalf of the parents, and will make the monetary award clear later on. This sentence should be removed.

:The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU , but his ruling was vacated on appeal. This is a very nice, factual, well-referenced sentence, which should remain as-is: The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.

:The case was eventually settled, with the stickers being removed. This sentence is another good one. It should be altered to include the other conditions in the settlement, including an accurate figure for the attorney's fees: The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12.

: An ACLU press release suggested that its motives were to "ensure that their children receive proper science education" and to stop any message that evolutionists are political outsiders. I think this sentence is awkward - it's got grammar problems (the ACLU's children?), and uses legal language that is hard for non-lawyers to understand. I think that rather than speculate about the ACLU's motives, we should focus on what they actually did.

:But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees and collected $166,000 from the school district. This information was included in the sentence about the settlement, so we do not need it here.

:So the entire paragraph reads: In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of some parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District. In Selman v. Cobb County School District, the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to pay attorney's fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I welcome comments on this proposed version. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] thank you for doing this. The above work is exactly what is needed here. So, for the record:
:I think this is a well written and well supported version of the first paragraph of the “evolution” section. I would suggest adding a reference after the second sentence (the one you provided above to the full text of the decision should be fine), and I think I would like to see mention of the other people representing the parents in the first sentence or some mention of the other lawyers after the case was remanded (“Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Pepper Hamilton, a Philadelphia law firm, joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>. – this avoids the false impression that all of the settlement money went to the ACLU and adds information about the case) but other than that, I see nothing I would change in this paragraph.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:34, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is an updated version, including [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s suggestions, clarifying the number of parents, including a few links to other conservapedia articles, and adding a few relevant references, including the ACLU's Pretrial Brief. Again, I welcome comments and suggestions. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::(I have changed the below to say "reimburse" rather than "pay" and "attorneys' fees" rather than "attorney's fees", as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s point above.)--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid censoring science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to reimburse attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

I have several problems with the proposal. Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:26, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate use of the language. It is literally true and conveys exactly the information it should to those who are even passing familiar with the language of American law. If a few people are confused because they don’t understand how words are used in American courts, they have access to dictionaries and an article could be created if a big need is seen. That the parents would not recover any money awarded is a result of their choice to sue for injunctive relief rather than damages and it was the parents who would benefit from that relief—the relief sought. The issue of monetary awards is irrelevant in terms of who the case was brought on the behalf of.
:The claim that the name of the law firm is a trivial detail is in direct contradiction to the first point you made—the law firm is who got the money, not the ACLU. If we are going to talk about the monetary award the name of the people who actually got the award is relevant.
:The claim that “no textbooks were ever censored” if false. Before the stickers were placed in the textbooks, the students were given copies of the textbook where the pages dealing with evolution were blanked out. The stickers were put in to replace the old policy of censorship and so the settlement had to make clear that the school board did not adopt the old (censorship) policy as a result of agreeing to stop the new (non-censorship) policy. If you want to put the claim in context, a sentence on Cobb County’s history of censorship could be added.
:One can violate the Establishment Clause by censorship. If I forbid one form of speech and no other on the grounds of religion I violate the Establishment Clause – if I (as a state actor) say because I believe this religious proposition you may not say this, then I am violating the Establishment Clause.
:“Reimbursed” you are right is the wrong word, the term should be “recovered” which is the legal language. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 11:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You say that "On behalf of a group of five parents is a 100% accurate" because people can figure out the rest, but why not tell them? The current version is 100% accurate, and tells a more complete story of who the beneficiaries were.
:: I don't want to imply that Pepper Hamilton got all the money unless you can prove that they did. I doubt it.
:: The lawsuit was not about blanking pages, and it is misleading to pretend that it was. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I’m not objecting to telling people the rest I am objecting to the statement that “"on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money”. Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.
:::The current version of the article is not 100% accurate as I have pointed out repeatedly above. (For easy proof of this – it contains at least two false and misleading citations).
:::I’ll get back to you on the distribution of the funds but your source says: “The agreement specifies the board will not use such disclaimers in the future and commits the board to pay around $166,000 in attorney fees for the plaintiffs.” Not to the ACLU, that is to all the attorneys, until you get a source that says all the money went to the ACLU it is hiding facts to refuse to mention the other lawyers for the plaintiffs.
::::As a side note it seems that “huge” attorneys fees when they totaled about $55,000 more than what the School Board spent on their own lawyers is misleading, being that close in actual costs is fairly reasonable.
:::No one is pretending that the blanked pages were part of the lawsuit, but they were clearly part of the settlement and there is no reason to keep that fact out of the article(and to turn the point as you have tried to here, is to ignore the fact that you claimed that the censorship statement was irrelevant as there had never been censorship which there clearly had been).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See here <ref>Pepper Hamilton and fees[http://mm.isu.edu/pipermail/evolidaho/2006-February/000228.html]</ref> for how fees are handled. That should be sufficient to illustrate that not all of the money went to the ACLU and that the inclusion of other representatives for the plaintiffs is relevant.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: I added "for its lawyers" to clarify that the money went to the ACLU lawyers. The article already says that the lawsuit was in the name of the parents, so I am not sure what that complaint is. Is it that you want to omit the fact that the parents were not going to get any of the money? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::The lawyers at Pepper Hamilton are not the ACLU’s lawyers. Neither are the lawyers at Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, or the lawyers at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The most recent change to the page does not add any clarity (I think it tends to obfuscate). It certainly does not address my concerns.
:::::As far as your question goes, I think I answered that above—I wrote “Of course we should say that the money didn’t go to the parents, I don’t object to that, I object to your refusal to indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of.”--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: I thought that the Pepper Hamilton lawyers were working for the ACLU. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Who hired Pepper Hamilton? Who told them what to do, if not the ACLU?
:::::: The article does indeed "indicate who the case was actually brought on behalf of". The beneficiaries were the parents and the ACLU. Do you want to also mention Americans United for Separation of Church and State? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::They were working alongside the ACLU lawyers, they made decisions in concert (though they were the lead lawyers in Dover). Pepper Hamilton joined the case pro bono (In the case of the Cobb County stickers because of their experience in Dover, in the case of Dover because they are a big Pennsylvania firm). You keep moving the goalposts here—I’ve shown that the ACLU was not the only organization involved in the case, so you demand that I show that they didn’t get all the money, so I showed that Pepper Hamilton got some of the money and now you are demanding that I show that they were not working for the ACLU. I think the articles I’ve linked to already show that.
:::::::The article still has the objectionable sentence, and I’ve explained why I think it is false and misleading. Beneficiaries is not the right word, the case was brought on behalf of the parents independent of who benefited and the ACLU would not and did not receive all of the money.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], thank you for your input. I will try to incorporate your concerns, so that we have a version we can all agree on.

:Saying "on behalf of a group of five parents" is misleading because it was not the parents who were going to get the money. It's the parents who were going to get the legal relief - they were going to get the district to stop altering the science textbooks. Let me try to explain. Sometimes, people sue for money. Other times, they sue to get someone to stop doing something. If, for example, I left some slippery stuff on the sidewalk in front of my house, and you slipped on it and permantly damaged your legs so badly you couldn't walk, and therefore couldn't work, then you would sue me for money to compensate your for your lost wages (damages), plus you would also ask the judge to have me give you money to pay your lawyers, so you wouldn't be out-of-pocket for getting me to do the right thing (legal fees). That kind of case is a "damages" case. In this case, however, the parents asked the judge to get the district to stop infringing on their constitutional rights, and to have the district give them legal fees - money to pay their lawyers so they wouldn't be out-of-pocket for having to defend their rights. This is an "injunctive relief" case - there are no damages. The parents didn't sue to get the money, they sued to get the district to stop altering the science books. The money went to pay the parents' legal fees. This is totally normal in these cases, but it's not generally a profit-making thing. The lawyers are paid for expenses they have already incurred in working on the case. Sometimes in a damages case the lawyers also get a percentage of the damages money, but it didn't happen in this case (because there was no damages money). The lawyers just got paid for their work in defending the parents' constitutional rights. I can understand that this is a pivotal point in your understanding of the case, so it might be a hard one to wrap your head around - this legal stuff isn't easy. It's very important, though - if you still don't understand, ask again, and I'll try to explain it again.

:The name of the law firm seems like a trivial detail. It would be if we didn't go into the money part of things. However, since we are addressing the money, it is important because it explains that there were actually four organizations working on this case on behalf of the parents - two non-profits (the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State), plus two law firms (Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton). Any legal fees awarded would be distributed between all four organizations. Since this is an article on the AcLU, and since we have brought up the money, and since there has been significant misunderstanding about the money (who got it and why), it's important to be clear that the ACLU didn't pocket all $166,669.12.

:Saying "to avoid censoring science textbooks" is misleading because no science textbooks were ever censored. I agree that this is probably a bad choice of words. I was trying to both summarize the lengthy settlement agreement and to put it in non-lawyerese -- words that high school students would have no problem understanding. The original settlement said "excising or redacting", rather than censoring - I thought these words might be unfamiliar to the average reader of Conservapedia. Here is the text from the two main points of the settlement - perhaps we can together find better phrasing. Perhaps "altering"?

::(1)Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are enjoined from restoring to the science textbooks of students in the Cobb County schools any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers bearing language substantially similar to that used on the sticker that is the subject of this action.
::(2) Defendants, their officers, agents, successors, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them are further enjoined from taking the following actions that would prevent or hinder the teaching of evolution in the School District:
::a. making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means;
::b. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other warnings or disclaimers referring or relating to evolution or Charles Darwin;
::c. placing on students’ science textbooks any stickers, labels, stamps, inscriptions, or other statements relating to creationism,creation science, intelligent design, or any other religious view concerning the origins of life or the origins of human beings;
::d. excising or redacting materials on evolution in students’ science textbooks; or
::e. violating Georgia Code § 20-2-140, as amended, which requires that local school boards adopt the State Board of Education’s “uniformly sequenced core curriculum as the basis for its own curriculum,” including the state’s requirements with respect to the teaching of evolution, and Georgia Code § 20-2-142, as amended, which deems each local schoolboard “responsible for ensuring that,” among other things, “the uniformly sequenced core curriculum . . . [is] fully and effectively implemented.”

:Besides, implying a motivation to stop censoring contradicts the earlier implication that the Establishment Clause was the motivation. Censoring would be a violation of the Establishment clause - you might want to read over the legal papers in the case to understand this important point - I know it's hard to slog through the legalese, but see if you can understand the argument they are making - *how* the stickers were a violation of the Establishment clause (and how censorship would be the same kind of violation). This is the key point of this suit, and it's really critical to be able to understand their argument. This will really help you to understand the case and the points we are discussing here.

:Finally, "reimburse" is inaccurate unless you can show that the ACLU already paid that money. In fact, the cited sources do not say that the money was reimbursed. . I see that "recovered" is the correct term here, but the meaning is essentially the same. The basic idea is that the money is to cover the lawyer's fees & expenses. They *did* already pay that money - they paid the salaries of the lawyers from all four organizations for their time spent working on the case, as well as support staff salaries and other overhead costs. I'm guessing that's why the amount of money is so odd (twelve cents!) - because it is based on actual billable hours.

:So here is the new version. I'm not sure if I got the "recover" phrasing right - [[Reginod|Reginod]], could you tweak it? I changed "censoring" to "altering". Please continue to pick this apart. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], if you are still confused about the money or the motivation for the suit, please ask again and we'll do our best to help you understand. Let's continue to work together to get something we can all agree upon. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>,but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making disclaimers about evolution in the future, to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

::: It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

My thoughts -- I have a few questions I'd like to ask you - I'm really confused about some of your concerns, and I'm trying to understand. If you could answer a few of my questions it might help me to get what you are trying to say:

:It is misleading to just say "on behalf of a group of five parents" when the terms of the lawsuit were such that the ACLU would get the money. I see that this bothers you a lot, but I'm not sure I understand why it is misleading. Could you try to explain a bit? I know it seems obvious to you but it isn't to me. I am trying to understand! When we say "the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents", I had assumed that most people would understand that the ACLU folks were the lawyers, and the parents were the plaintiffs. Do you think that is unclear who is who? Is there another way to say it to make that clear? Or is your concern not so much which are the lawyers and which are the plaintifs but more about who the money was awarded to? Since we say "attorneys' fees of $166,669.12", doesn't that make it clear that the money goes to the lawyers? Or is there another way to read this? I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I genuinely don't understand how this phrasing is misleading or unclear. How would you prefer we phrase it?

:It is misleading to imply that the Establishment Clause was the main motive when the ACLU's own press releases emphasize scientific issues that have nothing to do with religion. I don't think we've implied *motive* at all, we've tried to stick to the facts. We stated "the ACLU argued that the district had violated the Establishment clause". Do you agree that they argued the case on this basis, or do you think they argued it on other grounds? Are you saying that they had a different motive than protecting the plaintiff's Constitutional rights? I'm getting the impression that you think the ACLU had some other motive, that was somehow a lot more important than the Establishment issue, but I'm confused about what you think it might have been. The ACLU has a long history of taking on Establishment cases - it's kind of what they do, so it seems odd to think that they had some other overriding reason for taking the case. (Science comes into it, of course - you couldn't argue this case without talking about science - but it's *because* the case is partly about "what is science" vs. "what is religion" that it *is* an Establishment case, if you see what I mean. Was the sticker a statement about science? Or about religion? If the latter, that creates an Establishment issue. If the former, then there is no Establishment issue. That's what they were arguing about.) Can you suggest another way to write this sentence to describe the basis on which the ACLu argued this case?

:It is silly to even mention firms that were going to be involved in a remanded trial that never happened. The ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore were all specifically mentioned in the settlement, and the money was actually handled by (paid to) Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, so if we are including the money (which seems to be important to you), then I don't understand why we wouldn't mention the firms who were presumably the ones who got some of the money. Wouldn't it be even more misleading to imply that the ACLU got all of the money? I'm trying to understand your thoughts here.

:The link to the actual settlement is useful, and should be added. I agree, and I did add it, several versions ago - it is one of the two citations on the last sentence. See the references section. It's a little confusing because the press release from the district is the first part of the document, but it's followed by the settlement.

: You still make arguments about money that was paid, but you have no evidence that any money was paid before the settlement, or that any settlement money went to anyone but ACLU lawyers. You've read the settlement, right? The money was initially paid to the Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP Trust Account, not the ACLU. I don't know how it was distributed after that - perhaps you can find some info on that? Again, I'm trying to understand, but I'm just not sure what you're getting at. Why *wouldn't* it be distributed to the various organizations that had worked on the case, of course in proportion to their contribution? Isn't that what attorneys' fees awards are *for*? Law firms and non-profits like the ACLU (or HSLDA, etc.) often take on cases and incur expenses that don't get covered until after the case is finished. They pay their employees up front, then hope to be reimbursed if/when they win the case. It's how they do business. They only take cases they think they have a strong chance of winning, because otherwise they have to pay their employees *without* being reimbursed by the defendants. Are you saying that it didn't cost the ACLU anything to work on this case, so they shouldn't be entitled to any attorneys' fees? Or are you saying they got more money than they spent? Obviously they incurred expenses - they have to pay their lawyers and their support staff and so on who are working on the case - writing the arguments, filing the paperwork, etc. I'm not sure what you think the money in the case was for - could you try to explain that a bit? Again, I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I'm just having a hard time understanding your concerns.

:Thank you for continuing to listen to my concerns and those of others here, and for trying to understand what we are saying. I will continue to try to understand your concerns, so hopefully we will be able to find language we can agree on. Perhaps if you wrote a little more - expanded on your thoughts a bit, explained things the way you would to a student who didn't understand, perhaps, instead of just writing one sentence to describe your concerns - it would help me to see things from your perspective and understand your position. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Usually a plaintiff hires a lawyer to file a lawyer, and collect damages that are paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff pays the lawyer either in cash up front, or out of the take. But these 28 USC 1988 ACLU lawsuits don't work that way, and I don't think that the reader is going to understand that. So that's why I insist on saying who gets the money.
:: I didn't want to say anything about ACLU motives, but you (Hsmom) and Reginod asked for it. As evidence, we have the complaint, the settlement, and the ACLU press release. I think that it is fair to say that if the ACLU demanded something and got it, then it was part of the ACLU motivations. What else is there to be said?
:: Apparently the ACLU hired some other law firms, and divvied up the money in some unknown manner. Unless we know the details, I don't see how this info is useful. Maybe the ACLU paid out most of the money to firms working for the ACLU, or maybe not. Even if the ACLU did, it is still correct to say that the money went to ACLU lawyers.
:: I will add the link to the settlement. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:50, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think I see where you are coming from on the 18 USC §1988 point here—my concern is that 1—all 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work this way (not just ACLU filed ones)—2—if you are going to explain who gets the money under these suits it seems that you need to explain why (namely when the state violates your Constitutional rights often there are no monetary damages that can be recoveries, so without the fee recovery rule you couldn’t get a lawyer to help you protect your rights (the statute dates back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act))—and 3—As the article stands you are not explaining how 18 USC §1988 lawsuits work you are simply saying ACLU could get millions of dollars (which is not how the statute works, they can only recover costs).
:::I personally would be fine with no mention of motives, but the article had inaccurate discussion of motives in it. If there is going to be mention of motives I want them to be accurate.
:::The ACLU did not “hire” other law firms, they were joined—that means the other law firms either asked to help (almost certainly because some of their lawyers thought this would be a good pro bono case to work on) or because the plaintiffs asked them to do so (this is the less likely option but since I don’t know which it is I figured I’d throw it out there). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Unless someone actually knows the business relationship between the ACLU and these other firms and has some reason to think that it is significant, then I don't see how it can go into the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 09:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::I know the other firms got some of the money (the money that you think is incredibly important) and I know that they joined the case (which means they were not hired by the ACLU) – all of this is in the references that Hsmom and I have provided already—all I don’t know is whether they asked to join the case or whether they were asked to join the case (hardly a relevant point, we don’t even know whether the ACLU was asked to file the case or whether they asked to file the case).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I think I'm starting to get it. You want to make it clear to the readers that instead of the parents getting the money and giving some of it to the ACLU, the money goes directly to the lawyers. I think we can convey this idea, while still being accurate about who filed the suit, and leaving out any words that imply there was improper or unusual behavior. The current wording I'm concerned about is The ACLU filed a lawsuit, ... The ACLU lawsuit was ostensibly in behalf of indignant parents, but any monetary award would be paid to the ACLU. ...But the ACLU did not mention that it also demanded huge attorney fees... 
:First of all, it was not the ACLU who filed the suit, the ACLU filed *on behalf of* the parents. ("Ostensiby" implies that the ACLU were just using the parents to get the money, rather than them taking the case because their mission is to take on Establishment cases. This has not been proven and thus should not be implied. We are including the financial information so that anyone who has concerns in that area has the facts and can draw their own conclusions.) "*On behalf of* the parents" is the proper way to say it. However, I think we can also clarify that the ACLU would get the money.

:I don't think we need to say the parents were "indignant" - more importantly, they felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, which is why they filed the suit - I don't think we need to comment at all beyond saying they filed the suit. "Indignant" trivializes the issue.

:The attorney fees were not "huge" - they seem to me to be pretty normal for cases like this one. "Demanded" also implies that the ACLU was asking for something out of the ordinary, when in fact it is normal - even routine - to have attorneys' fees awarded in these cases - as [[User:Reginod|Reginod]] pointed out, it is critical to have this provision in cases like these so that everyone has the means to bring these cases and enforce their constitutional rights (assuming they have a case strong enough to get a lawyer to take on).

:As to motives - the way I read the current article, it implies that the ACLU brought the case so they could get the money. If we take out this implication, I will be happy with no other mention of motive.

:So, I've changed my suggested version, generally combining your concerns with mine and [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s. I've inserted an objective sentence explaining that the ACLU would get the money - if anyone has a good reference explaining how these cases work, I'd be happy to add it. I've eliminated discussion of motive. I've tried to create neutral language. I put in a full representation of the settlement, summarizing each of the conditions. I've included the quote from the settlement you used in your version of the article. And I did leave in the lawyers, so that we aren't inaccurately implying that the ACLU was the only one getting the money, as per [[User:Reginod|Reginod]]'s concerns - we can discuss this in the context of this new version if you still don't like it being there. I've included all the references we've agreed upon so far (with full titles, so that the reader doesn't just get a meaningless URL but can look at the reference section and understand which one is the settlement, which is the original decision, etc.). Here it is:

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of a group of five parents in the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> As is usual in cases involving a violation of constitutional rights, if the parents won the case, their lawyers, inclulding the ACLU, could recover their costs. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> [[Americans United for Separation of Church and State]], Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, and Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton joined the ACLU of Georgia in handling the case on remand to the district court. <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> The case was eventually settled, with the school district agreeing to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means", to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), and to recover attorneys' fees of $166,669.12. <ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

:I feel we are getting much closer to agreement - please comment on this version. Is there anything here that anyone feels *must* be taken out? Is there anything not included here that anyone feels *should* be included? Is there anything worded in a misleading or confusing way? By working together we can make it great!--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:18, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, several things must be taken out, and I don't think that it is an improvement. You want to say "on behalf of a group of five parents" because you want to imply that the ACLU was not just using the parents to get the money. But how do you know that? Maybe the ACLU was doing exactly that. It is known that the ACLU often does go fishing for plaintiffs in cases like this. What evidence do you have that the ACLU cares anything about the parents?
:: You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? I find this unlikely. You say "recover their costs", but 28 USC 1988 is not just limited to recovering costs, and the ACLU was asking more than just recovering costs.
:: You say "As is usual" to indicate your approval. It doesn't belong. You say "involving a violation of constitutional rights". Again, this is just your opinion. I do not happen to agree. My version lets the reader decide for himself.
:: Adding the names of the law firms is trivial and useless info, especially when we don't even know whether they had any significant role. Saying that the school district agreed to teach the core curriculum is misleading unless you also say that it wasn't under dispute in the case. Again you use the word "recover", which is inaccurate because we don't know that anyone recovered anything. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You say that the parents "felt their Constitutional rights were being violated". Again, how do you know? Because they sued the school district over it. It seems pretty obvious to me. Being involved in a lawsuit takes a lot of time and effort, and is not something that most families take on lightly. Do you have evidence to disprove this? Because if not, I think it's pretty safe to assume that parents who file a lawsuit saying that their Constitutional rights have been violated *actually believe* that their Constitutional rights have been violated. However, regardless of what either of us believe about the parent's feelings or beliefs, my version of the article doesn't make any statements whatsoever about the parent's beliefs or feelings. It simply states what they *did*, which was have the ACLU file a lawsuit on their behalf. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Well, it is not obvious to me, and I think that it is unlikely the parents felt their Constitutional rights were being violated. The parents were probably leftist-atheist-evolutionists who wanted to make a pro-evolution statement. The ACLU had its own motives for taking the case, and those motives certainly included making a pro-evolution statement and collecting a monetary judgment. We know that from the complaint, the settlement, and the press release. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:38, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

OK. I am catching on, I think. See how you like this one. I have taken out the "on behalf of a group of five parents" phrase, because you see bias there and we don't want any bias. I have taken out reference to constitutional rights. I have taken out "recover", because you felt this wasn't accurate, and "As usual", because you felt it was an opinion. I have taken out the statement about the law firms. I have explained that teaching the core curriculum wasn't under dispute in the case. I have put in exactly who the money went to, with a reference. I have put in the two press release quotes you thought were important.

What do you think? Am I getting closer? If there's anything that isn't quite right, please do suggest alternate wording. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:25, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::In 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Cobb County, Georgia, School District.<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> The plaintiffs in the suit were a group of five parents in the school district. If the parents won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers, including the ACLU. In [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], the ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers. They agreed to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means". They also agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum (which includes evolution), although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> In an ACLU press release, ACLU of Georgia Executive Director Debbie Seagraves commended "the brave parents in Cobb County who have fought for more than four years to ensure that their children receive proper science education in their public schools.” The press release also quoted the original decision, which stated that “the sticker sends a message to those who oppose evolution for religious reasons that they are favored members of the political community, while the sticker sends a message to those who believe in evolution that they are political outsiders.” <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers [http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>


You've made your points, and I've made mine. I have my biases, of course. Maybe we should turn this over to some more neutral observer. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks to me like this last version of the paragraph is a good one, not quite what I would like, but it seems to address all of your concerns. Every single claim has a clear supporting reference that backs up the claim and the language seems incredibly neutral. Where does it go wrong? What would you change about it and why? Is there a sentence you would add somewhere? --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We can turn this dispute over to the student panel, but there's no doubt that this Georgia lawsuit by the ACLU was designed to censor criticism of evolution. Moreover, we're not going to simply post self-serving excerpts from the ACLU press release. Look at what the ACLU demanded and received in the settlement agreement -- censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity -- and then describe the litigation in those terms. Maximum length should be no more than 400 words on this, as our [[rules]] emphasize conciseness. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: If we're not going to use "self-serving" sources, perhaps AiG should go. Just a thought. Anyways, the phrase "censorship" is values-loaded. The ACLU certainly sought to censor religion from public endorsement. But so did the Constitution :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Why can’t we quote ACLU press releases if we clearly indicate that is what they are and do so to support statements about what they said they were doing. I can’t think of a better source to support a claim like “The ACLU said…” than an ACLU press release.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 08:51, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]], I agree that it might help to bring in a few other folks to help us agree on a good version of this paragraph. Anyone is welcome to help us, but it would be useful for them to read through the discussion above and in the previous two sections, to understand what the issues have been and how we've arrived at the current proposed version. As to the details -
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], I agree with you that the ACLU press release quotes do not belong. I only put them there because they are in the current article and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] seemed to feel they were important, as they spoke to the ACLU's motive in bringing the case - perhaps I misunderstood. Let's take them out.
::[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], we had the term "censor" in a previous version, and [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] felt it was inappropriate/biased, and I could see his point, so we took it out. See the discussion above.
::I agree that "censorship of criticism of evolution in perpetuity" was part of the settlement. That's why I think it's critical to include that the board agreed to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, which is not included in the current version of the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] was reluctant to include it, and felt that if we included that, it was important to point out that wasn't under dispute in the original suit, so I left that phrase in. (See above for the full discussion.)
::There are a lot of details about the money in the case that I'd be willing to remove, but [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] feels they are important, as he feels money may have been the ACLU's primary motivation for taking the case, so I have left them in. (The current version of this paragraph in the ACLU article implies that money was the ACLU's primary motivation for bringing the suit - I do not feel that point of view is supported by the references given in the article, which is one reason I think the current article must be changed. I personally think the ACLU's primary motivation was to remove anything that even hinted at Creationism from the public school, because of separation of church and state issues (i.e. the Establishment clause)). However, I think we can write a factual paragraph without speculating as to motive, by including both the facts that support the money motive and the facts that support the Establishment/removal of Creationism motive.
::As to conciseness, I actually think this case deserves its own article, so that more details and references can be included, however I thought starting one would be counter-productive until we'd worked through the basic concerns here. Nonetheless, I've simplified it by removing quite a few words. This shorter version has about 161 words.
::So here is a version that I'm hoping addresses [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]'s concerns as I understand them, does not include speculation, sticks to unbiased language, and removes the things [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] is concerned about, and is concise. I welcome input - I really think that by working together we can create a concise, unbiased, well-referenced paragraph.

:::In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref> 

::Again, I welcome input - please compare this paragraph to the existing one, and see if you feel there's anything more that should be added or removed or rephrased. I'm willing to work to find a solution that is factual, concise, well-referenced, and avoids bias or speculation. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's call it quits for the holiday, OK? We'll come back with fresh minds to tackle this section. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think that is an outstanding idea, a bit of distance could be good for me. This is also probably a good place to archive the discussion, can someone who knows how do so?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 23:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't know how. I did unprotect the page. I am not saying that there is a consensus. We have had a worthwhile discussion, and protection is no longer needed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, unless I hear I shouldn’t, I’m going to add [[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]]’s last version of this paragraph to the article in a day or so. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:Reginod|Reginod]], I would appreciate that. In the meantime, I have started an article on this case, [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]], where further information can be added without as much concern for the length of the article, so that those who want to know more can consult the relevant sources, etc. I hope others can add well-researched, factual information to the article. Perhaps we can work together to expand the information on other ACLU cases, so we can present a factual, well-sourced article.

==References==
<references/>

== Scope of page ==

This page is 78 kilobytes long and seems to be largely about whether the ACLU is doing the right thing or not. Maybe this should be one of our [[debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], most of this page is a discussion about whether or not the current paragraphs on the locked article page are accurate, and how they should be corrected if they are not. some of this can probably be safely archived (though Evolution 2.0 and Evolution 3.0 are both still active)—I’d do it myself if I knew how.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==logo==
[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|logo]]

== When is an amicus brief worth mentioning? ==

[[User:Aschlafly]] [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=133982&oldid=118651 added]] a mention of a case the ACLU filed an amicus brief in but did not represent the plaintiffs in; less than an hour later, he [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=next&oldid=134031 removed]] all mention of racial equality cases with the edit summary "removed liberal bias; ACLU did not represent the plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education". Is there any principle in use here other than "ACLU is bad"? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 20:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: You omitted a distinction: the amicus brief in the entry was filed in the last few months, while the amicus brief deleted was filed over 50 years ago. Yes, what an organization did earlier this year is more relevant to its entry than what it did over 50 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay, thank you. In that case, should 70 year old quotes and the fact that the founder was a socialist be the most prominent items in the page? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: He was the founder, so his vision remains important. But perhaps you're right: it may not be first in significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Cartoon==

Is the cartoon really necessary? It doesn't really add anything to the article, in fact it makes CP look like it's susceptible to an opinionated POV rather than presenting relatively objective facts. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 10:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:The cartoon is relevant from a [[conservative]] POV. Conservapedia is ''not'' going to have a NPOV (see my [[User:Crocoite#Message_to_all_liberals|message to all liberals]]). --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Basic Definition of ACLU==

Hi all. Included in the definition should be a bit more on what the ACLU says it's trying to accomplish. Simply stating that the ALCU is "devoted to protecting certain types of civil liberties", is entirely too superficial for an entry that lies at the center of the conservative/liberal sociological interface :). Providing that information, then a "criticisms" section would be way more direct, informative, poignant, and trustworthy. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 13:50, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== ACLU, Phelps and NAMBLA ==

Nambla and Phelps are listed at the bottom a links, but there is no mention in the article. Is there a way to get that in there? I don't know anything about their connection. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 15:27, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wall Street Journal and Tyler Chase==
The assertion of the Wall Street Journal's opinion concerning the Tyler Chase lawsuit is without merit. Chase was represented by attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund. Jordan Budd, legal director of the San Diego chapter of the ACLU believed Chase’s case had merit and is quoted as stating, "The school district is not empowered to censor based on what they deem inflammatory, it has to be based on a constitutional standard." <ref>http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&DID=34019&CID=488 </ref> I recommend the paragraph should be edited to reflect the facts instead of opinions.--Jimmy 23:30, 7 February 2008 (EST)

: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=400162&oldid=399845 I have done so, though I used a different citation.] [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:05, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Name of ACLU Founder==
The name of the ACLU's founder is Roger Nash Baldwin, not Robert Baldwin. <ref>http://www.aclu.org/about/faqs/index.html#3_6</ref>--Jimmy 00:14, 8 February 2008 (EST)
:The article is not locked, so you can make changes to it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:28, 8 February 2008 (EST)
::Er... you did. I can't read, sorry. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversion explained ==

Don't give a misleading picture of the ACLU. If someone wants to talk about ACLU involvement in free speech, make sure the examples reflect the distribution of cases the ACLU handles, such as many cases pushing obscenity on our society.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:This is just another example of why it seems futile to write factual articles for this encyclopedia. I replaced a portion of the article that was based on the false assumptions of an opinion column with factual statements that in no way misrepresented the work of the ACLU. It is a fact that the ACLU defends speech that others support or despise, yet you insist on reverting my entry to another that violates Conservapedia guidelines. <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines </ref>You want obscene? What is more obscene than supporting the free speech rights of the KKK? Care to give me any references that will satisfy your ideal of obscenity so I won't waste my time writing something you personally disagree with?--Jimmy 22:51, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Mr. Schlafly: I hope you realize your revert also re-introduced another error that I corrected earlier. It's up to you but I think this article would be more convincing if the founder of the ACLU was referred to by his correct name, Roger not Robert. The correct name is at the beginning of the article but not the end. I would correct it again but you have a habit of reverting all of the edits I make to your article edits.--Jimmy 23:01, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:: You rant and rave because I pointed out the fallacy in your approach. The ACLU pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases. Reflect that fact in your postings here and don't mislead readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: My 'rant and rave' as you call it follows Conservapedia guidelines while your reversions do not. I do not know of ANY reference that claims the ACLU 'pushes obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases'. Care to provide a reliable source? If you do I will gladly write what you want. I suspect that you made up this statistic and will not be able to back it up.--Jimmy 23:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::: Jimmy, do a survey of news stories and decisions mentioning the ACLU. That fact that you're unaware of it simply illustrates the problem.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::: I am well aware of the ACLU's work. If you want to convince me that they are pushing obscenity cases 5 times as much as religion cases, then you need to provide the reference. I absolutely refuse to confirm the outlandish opinions of others and do research for people that refuse to back up their assertions with basic evidence and references. Every detail in my article edits are backed up with reliable references. Unfortunately I have been reverted numerous times without explanation or by someone saying they just don't like what I write. --Jimmy 23:31, 11 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Jimmy, it's pretty much common knowledge that the ACLU does more cases defending obscenity than cases defending religious expression (in fact, come to think of it they probably do more cases defending religious suppression than they do defending religious expression); as Andy said if you do a quick search than you'll easily find this is true.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::::Like I said before, I am aware of the ACLU's work. What you and Schlafly are saying is completely at odds with what I have read. If anyone has a hope of changing my opinion, they have to do something very simple, provide evidence that I am wrong. All you or Schlafly has done is throw out meaningless unreferenced stats that wouldn't convince anyone. By the way, why is the opinion of a columnist allowed to trump factual statements and events? Why should an item concerning the alleged activities of the ACLU be included in this article when it violates the guidelines? I would really like to know. It looks like I am the one trying to follow the rules while the people in leadership positions are violating them. --Jimmy 23:47, 11 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::Posted a list of Free Speech cases with the proper 5:1 'obscene/whatever' ratio. Hopes this meets with approval. Deleted the item on Tyler Chase for violating Conservapedia guidelines. --Jimmy 14:35, 14 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::No, it doesn't meet our approval. Don't delete Aschlafly's edits while inserting your own. You do NOT decide if someone is violating Conservapedia guidelines. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:53, 14 February 2008 (EST)

== Harper v. Poway Unified School District... ==

...seems relevant to me...why take it out? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 20:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)

: It was misleading. I've added the info in an accurate way now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:25, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::I'm no lawyer, but aren't all amicus briefs carefully worded? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::: Oh, [[liberals]] are sooooooooo literal. HelpJazz, the phrase "carefully worded" has meaning beyond its literal interpretation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:34, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::First let me say that I love being called a liberal yet again. I just don't see the harm, in an encyclopedia, to say what we mean. If we don't literally mean "carefully worded", then wouldn't the encyclopedia be better off with whatever we really mean? For us literal "liberals"? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::: No, HelpJazz, because good writing does not restrain itself with overly literal -- and obviously inapplicable -- interpretations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::Encyclopedic writing lends itself to clarity, though, I would hope. In the context, I don't know what you are trying to imply by "carefully worded". If I don't know, then likely other users who are trying to learn from this encyclopedia don't know, and then the encyclopedia is failing at its only job, which is to teach. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:47, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::: HelpJazz, I don't see any credible complaints of confusion but, if you think this is so important, then please suggest a succinct substitute that does not dilute the obvious point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::First I'm a liberal, and now I'm not a credible witness. I'm falling down rungs much faster than I can climb them, I guess. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:56, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::Just popping in to say that I'm rather confused that carefully worded does not mean carefully worded. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:01, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::::::::: Wow, [[liberals]] love to talk, talk, talk. Just suggest a succinct substitute that makes the same point. (Or pretend after all these messages that you still cannot grasp the point.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 'scuse me for providing proof that people can be confused by impercise doublespeak. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:12, 6 March 2008 (EST)

For those interested in this case, here are some more documents:

[http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/HarperPetition.pdf Alliance Defense Fund's cert. brief to SCOTUS]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement 9th circuit opinion]
[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/3BC4CBC4E3F50F418825715600022D4D/$file/0457037d.pdf Kozinski's dissent]

[[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Free Speech section==
This section jumbles together the alleged times when the ACLU has defended free speech and times when they have not. I plan on in the future shifting these into two sections for ease of parsing.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 18:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

: Not sure what you have in mind, but [[liberal]] [[placement bias]] is not allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:01, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Free Speech Issues ==

The article claims that the American Civil Liberties Union "virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality." This is, however, false; as the ACLU defended Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the anti-homosexual Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/26265prs20060721.html (ACLU press release)

Therefore I believe this portion of the article should be taken down so Conservapedia can remain as accurate as possible.

:So, one example out of thousands of contrary ones, makes a logical argument? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:47, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

::TK: Thousands of "contrary ones"? This claim and many like it have been made about the ACLU by Iduan, Aschlafly, etc., but no one has ever even posted the slightest bit of evidence that this is so. Any chance that you can be the exception to the rule and provide the evidence that backs up your assertion? --Jimmy 22:58, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Yes, I will be happy to, Jimmy. Please keep in mind that my usual hours preclude me being on line here during the day, and my time being able to edit is very limited being on the West Coast, okay? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0201-29.htm
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/aclu-and-religious-liberty.html
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1769031#post24424698

I have found many more reasons why I believe this piece of the article should be taked down. This contradicts the statement "virtually never" as stated in the article. Therefore, unless I have missed something, I will take down that segment of the article.

Talk:ACLU

2008-03-31T20:49:43Z

Adg2011: /* Free Speech Issues */