Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:ACLU

2009-02-20T01:51:01Z

JohnnyBB:

== "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? {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:::I noted that CP does not strive for neutrality, as you suggested it do. I have no idea where the Constitution and WP references connect. Happy editing! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:33, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== 'Conspicuously Absent' section ==

I previously commented on this section of the article and I think TK did amend it, but both must have been lost with the recent crash. This section is poorly construction and too opinionated, and needs a lot of work. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:44, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Privacy Rights Section ==
Is there any chance an explanation could be given for the removal of the Privacy Rights section? TK posted a threat on my talk page not to post 'liberal deceit' or I wouldn't be taken seriously. I was under the impression that the ACLU did do the three things indicated in the offending section. If there is any information that would indicate they did not support 'Joe the Plumber' with an open letter, file a friend of the court brief in support of Limbaugh, or join a broad coalition of civil rights groups to oppose the national ID card, please let me know or post it in the article. I thought the references provided were of the required quality, or is Fox News a source of 'liberal deceit'? --[[User:JohnnyBB|JohnnyBB]] 13:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:Look, without a longer track record your contributions could very well be [[liberal deceit]]. Perhaps these additions are along the lines of Satan quoting Psalm 91:11-12 when he/she (...could Satan be female?) made an attempt to tempt Christ. Or perhaps these additions are okay. In either case, it's too difficult to tell. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 21:13, 18 February 2009 (EST)

::Well said, RickD.

::JohnnyBB, you are well on your way to proving my point. I don't make threats, what I posted on your talk page, take it as a promise. Either discuss your plans for changes to articles on the talk pages, or we can just not waste your time, or anyone else's here as well, and block you immediately. This isn't whatever liberal wiki you might be used to. Time wasters, especially those trying to prove the unprovable, namely that the ACLU is anything other than biased against conservative thought, and a radical leftist organization, with a demonstrable track record of being that, will be a one-way ticket to oblivion here. But please, don't take my word for it! Go post on the [[user talk:aschlafly|Owner's page]], and tell him about my "threats", and your thoughts about how the ACLU is interested in protecting everyone's privacy, including conservatives. You might also want to be prepared to answer some questions from him about the tens of thousands of babies the ACLU has helped kill. Just saying..... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:12, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:::RickD: Comparing my edits to Satan? Are you serious or is this a form of subtle humor?

:::TK: I read the Commandments, guidelines, and etiquette links you thoughtfully provided. Thank-you very much. Nowhere did I see a prohibition against editing an article without starting a discussion on the talk page. Was I mistaken? If so, could you point me in the right direction please? There is however a rule that suggests, ''Favour improving another person's edits over deleting them.'' I wonder who ignored this concept? By the way, in America, ''favour'' is spelled without the ''u''. The ''u'' is used in Britain. Thank the first Roosevelt administration for the change.

:::You claimed I was trying to prove the ''unprovable'' (sic). Yet I am the one that posted references to my edit that even included a conservative source. Are you actually trying to deny that the ACLU has supported the privacy rights of at least some Americans even when they don't believe in such a concept themselves? Limbaugh denied the existence of a constitutional right to privacy, yet that didn't stop him from accepting the ACLU's brief nor did he stop his attorney from making the same claims in his defense against the doctor shopping charges.

:::If the owner of this page wants to start a dialog with me about the alleged distain for privacy rights you are alleging about the ACLU, I would be glad to do so. I will not contact him on his personal page because the etiquette page states any discussion concerning the content of an article should take place on the article's talk page and not an editor's page. I don't want to give you any additional reasons to make any more ''promises'' in reference to the factual and referenced edits I have made.

:::I suppose we could discuss the issue of the ACLU's alleged baby killing, but I prefer that we stick to the issue at hand, you know, the idea that the ACLU may actually support privacy rights of certain Americans. Would this be an issue you care to discuss? Can we have a rational discussion on the stated topic without wandering over to other areas like baby killing? Would you be willing to provide primary or secondary sources to your claims instead of just saying things like the ''ACLU is anything other than biased against conservative thought, and a radical leftist organization''? If your assertion is the unmitigated and unquestionable fact that you seem to insist it is, then you should have no problem providing numerous references.

:::Once again, thank-you for your responses concerning my alleged ''liberal deceit''. I'm kind of blown away that editing this encyclopedia in a way that abides by the Commandments, guidelines and rules of etiquette is somehow ''liberal deceit''. Do I have your permission to follow the example set by yourself when editing articles? If so would you kindly tell me so? That way I won't have to worry about things like ''liberal deceit'' accusations. --[[User:JohnnyBB|JohnnyBB]] 20:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:ACLU

2009-02-18T18:58:41Z

JohnnyBB:

{{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? {{unsigned|Adg2011}}

:::I noted that CP does not strive for neutrality, as you suggested it do. I have no idea where the Constitution and WP references connect. Happy editing! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:33, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== 'Conspicuously Absent' section ==

I previously commented on this section of the article and I think TK did amend it, but both must have been lost with the recent crash. This section is poorly construction and too opinionated, and needs a lot of work. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:44, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Privacy Rights Section ==
Is there any chance an explanation could be given for the removal of the Privacy Rights section? TK posted a threat on my talk page not to post 'liberal deceit' or I wouldn't be taken seriously. I was under the impression that the ACLU did do the three things indicated in the offending section. If there is any information that would indicate they did not support 'Joe the Plumber' with an open letter, file a friend of the court brief in support of Limbaugh, or join a broad coalition of civil rights groups to oppose the national ID card, please let me know or post it in the article. I thought the references provided were of the required quality, or is Fox News a source of 'liberal deceit'? --[[User:JohnnyBB|JohnnyBB]] 13:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Compean and Ramos controversy

2009-02-18T03:44:19Z

JohnnyBB:

==Mandatory Sentencing==
Republican party is not hte only people that have championed minimum sentencing. California has the same law, enacted by a Democrat legislators. --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 21:38, 17 February 2009 (EST)

: The GOP has made mandatory minimums a part of their platform for many years, why is it wrong to mention their opinion? You also altered the quote from their platform and it is a distortion of their actual position. Do you insist on misleading the readers of this article about the stated position of the GOP? If California democrats enacted the same legislation, why don't you put it in the article and post a reference? --[[User:JohnnyBB|JohnnyBB]] 22:44, 17 February 2009 (EST)

ACLU

2009-02-18T03:32:45Z

JohnnyBB:

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]

The '''American Civil Liberties Union''' ('''ACLU''') is a [[leftist]], [[secular]]-[[Progressivism|progressive]] [[organization]]. It was run for its first 30 years by an [[United States of America|American]] named [[Roger Baldwin]], who supported communism but later denounced it in his book, ''A New Slavery'', which condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny" [http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html]. who helped found it in 1920. This organization pursues a [[leftist]] agenda that includes [[censoring]] [[prayer]] and recognition of [[God]] from public institutions, such as [[public schools]].

==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 Hazleton case the ACLU persuaded a [[federal]] [[court]] to declare a municipal ordinance to be unconstitutional, even though other federal courts have upheld similar laws since then. The Hazleton case is on appeal.

The ordinance defines "illegal aliens", fines property owners for renting to them, fines business owners for hiring them, and bars businesses from selling them merchandise. It also requires government documents to be in English only, and requires documents from residents to city officials to be in English. <ref>ACLU Press Release: Hazleton Residents Sue to Halt Harsh Anti-Immigrant Law, August 15, 2006, retrieved 10/14/08 [http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/hazletonresidentssuetohalt.htm]</ref>

==Censoring God==
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).
[[Image:ACLU and Islam.jpg|left|300px|It All Depends On Whose Church Is Being Separated]]

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 another case ''Glassroth v. Moore'', 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (2002) the Alabama chapter sued [[Alabama]] [[Supreme Court]] [[Chief Justice]] Roy Moore to remove a Ten Commandments Monument, with Moore remarking "fearing that I would not obey his order, decided to threaten other state officials and force them to remove the monument if I did not do so". A threat of heavy fines was his way of coercing obedience to that order". 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.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at [[City Hall|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.

In the ACLU's quest to attack the Christian religion any chance it gets, they are suing in Alaska courts to remove the property tax exemption from church owned properties. <ref>[http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_doesnt_want_to_pay_taxes_expects_churches_to_pay_them/ ACLU Doesn't Want to Pay Taxes; Expects Churches to Pay Them] The American Civil Rights Union</ref>

An Indiana judge has upheld the issuance of license plates bearing the message "In God We Trust," dismissing a constitutional challenge by the ACLU. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351721,00.html Indiana Judge Dismisses ACLU Challenge, Upholds 'God' License Plate] AP, April 18, 2008</ref>

The ACLU persuaded the Ninth Circuit to forbid Congress from transferring a cross to private owners who would preserve it in the Mojave Desert, in Buono v. Kempthorne <ref>[http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E8062E92D0210668825734D007E25AA/$file/0555852.pdf?openelement UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT] USCOURTS.GOV</ref>

The ACLU enlisted the Courts to have banned the private distribution of Bibles in public school. The federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued this ruling for the ACLU. Doe v. S. Iron R-1 Sch. Dist., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 19818 (8th Cir. Aug. 21, 2007).

The Seventh Circuit ruled against the ACLU by overturning "a lower court's decision that sectarian prayers on the floor of the (Indiana) House violated the constitutional separation of church and state."

The ACLU offers "talking points" in case someone asks why the ACLU hates Christmas so much: Their official response, "We work year-round to ensure that everyone in America has the freedom to practice their own religion (or no religion) and to keep the government out of religion." <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1686800,00.html No Ho Ho.] Time, November 21, 2007</ref>

A rural school district's long-standing practice of allowing the distribution of Bibles to grade school students is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled. For more than three decades, the South Iron School District in Annapolis, 120 miles southwest of St. Louis. The ACLU filed suit two years ago on behalf of four sets of parents. <ref>[http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=27416&sec=36&cont=all Court Ends Bible Distribution in School] AP, January 9, 2008</ref>

==Censoring [[intelligent design|Intelligent Design]]==
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 - Views and News]</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>

==Harming 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>

The ACLU also recently forced a Nampa, Idaho public library to return two books to the shelves that many parents have found objectionable. ''The Joy of Sex'' and ''The Joy of Gay Sex'' were the subjects of a two-year legal battle to get them removed after a teenager found one in his home within reach of young children. "''The Joy of Gay Sex'' contains very graphic, leave[s] nothing to the imagination [with] depictions of every variety of homosexual sex imaginable", said Bryan Fischer, one of the litigants to get the books removed. "It even has a chapter in it entitled 'Daddy/Son Fantasies.'" Other chapter titles include "Exhibitionism and Voyeurism," "Fisting," "Sex with Animals," and "Tearooms and Back Rooms." Referring to the ACLU's bullying tactics against the library, Fischer said "It's an abysmal state of affairs when a single letter from cultural thugs can undo two years of patient and pain-staking work." [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=244332]

==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).

==Conspicuously Absent==

The ACLU is known for going after the [[U.S.]] government with absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise, ACLU v. [[AT&T]] 2007. Though when it comes to actual data breaches and data abuse against a U.S. citizen, '''the ACLU is missing.''' Joe Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. ''Joe the Plumber'', had his personal and confidential records investigated without reason, by Democratic officials in Ohio, "[[Big Brother]]". <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Nov21/0,4670,JoeThePlumberRecords,00.html 4 more punished over 'Joe the Plumber' searches] Fox News, November 21, 2008</ref> Honest speculation is that the ACLU consists of partisan Democrats and ''Joe the Plumber'' was a [[Republican]], during a presidential election season. Questions remain and we can only guess as to their reasoning, their silence is deafening.

==Privacy Rights==

*Despite accusations during the 2008 Presidential campaign that the ACLU failed to come to the aid of Joe the Plumber, the Ohio chapter of the ACLU was ''deeply disturbed to hear that state officials approved the use of government databases to obtain information about Joseph Wurzelbacher.'' In an open letter, the executive director of the ACLU of Ohio stated, ''our leaders must create better safeguards against unfair breaches of our privacy.'' <ref>http://blog.cleveland.com/letters/2008/10/government_snoops_have_no_righ.html#more</ref>

*ACLU of Florida filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe. The ACLU contended law enforcement officers violated Limbaugh's privacy rights when they confiscated his medical records as part of their criminal investigation into his alleged doctor-shopping. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html</ref>

*The ACLU in conjunction with the American Conservative Union, American Library Association, Gun Owners of America, Republican Liberty Caucus, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Free Congress Foundation, and approximately 40 other organizations ran a full page open letter advertisement in the Washington Times urging the committee on intelligence reform to remove the national ID provisions from the 9/11 intelligence reform legislation. The ACLU claims, ''we all want a country that is as safe as possible, but 'Big Brother' provisions such as a national ID card would only serve to restrict our freedoms and invade our privacy and do nothing to ensure our security.'' <ref>http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18761prs20041115.html</ref>

==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:

*The ACLU rarely defends Christian speech, and virtually never defends speech that is critical of homosexuality. The ACLU was silent with respect to the widely publicized censorship of a T-shirt critical of homosexuality that was worn by student Tyler Chase Harper at his public school. "It's hard to explain the ACLU's apparent equanimity about the violation of Mr. Harper's First Amendment rights—unless you consider the content of his speech. This case does not appear to be anomalous. Despite its professed commitment to religious liberty, for example, the ACLU tends to absent itself from cases on college campuses involving the associational rights of Christian student groups to discriminate against gay students, in accordance with their religious beliefs."<ref>Wendy Kaminer, "The American Liberal Liberties Union," Wall Street Journal (May 23, 2007).</ref> Months ''after'' that stinging criticism, the ACLU filed a carefully worded [[amicus curiae]] brief in subsequent litigation in this case that defended Harper because he "neither substantially disrupted the school nor invaded the rights of other students."<ref>http://www.aclusandiego.org/article_downloads/000293/HarperAmicusDistrictCourtFinal.pdf . Buried in the brief near the end of an argument is the statement that "and because "to allow a [[Day of silence|Day of Silence]] one day while banning Mr. Harper's shirt the next day may give rise to an inference of viewpoint discrimination rather than justified regulation of student speech regardless of viewpoint"—but note that it does not argue that inference of viewpoint discrimination would be correct.</ref>

*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>

*A pro-Israel student at Columbia University was intimidated by a professor who silenced her rebuttal in class of his claim that the Israelis committed a massacre in Jenin, the ACLU refused to help defend her free speech. Apparently, the ACLU fevorishly defends the free speech for Islam, but Jewish and Christian free speech is irrelevent. <ref>[http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=449 ACLU Is AWOL On Free Speech] Conservativetruth.org, April 7, 2008</ref>

==Free Exercise Clause==

The ACLU at times defends the religious rights of American citizens and residents. 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>

On March 14, 2008, the ACLU sent a letter to the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy of Inver Grove Heights Minnesota expressing their disapproval of alleged school sponsored prayer during school hours. Concerns were raised about alleged violations of the establishment clause and the 'Lemon Test' because '… the school is improperly involved in promoting and facilitating after-school religious studies conducted under the auspices of the Mosque that is housed in the same building as the school.' Further inquiries are on-going. <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/downloads/LettertoTarekAcademy.pdf </ref> <ref> http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/aclumnopensinvestigationof.htm </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. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288381,00.html U.S. Appeals Court in Ohio Dismisses Challenge of Bush Administration's Domestic Surveillance Program] AP, July 06, 2007</ref> Then the ACLU appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was also rejected. <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/02/19/america-1-aclu-0/ America, 1. ACLU, 0.] Michelle Malkin, February 19, 2008</ref> <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331203,00.html Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Warrantless Surveillance Program] AP, February 19, 2008</ref> In addition, the following describes the measures the ACLU has taken to weaken America in its fight with terrorists.

* Urging city councils across the United States to be non-compliant with the provisions of the [[Patriot Act]], which is an important tool to keep America safe from terrorism. <ref>[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6145 ACLU] DiscoverTheNetworks.org</ref>

* Endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004. Introduced by liberal Democrats in Congress, it is to roll back vital national-security policies that had been adopted after 9/11.

* Consistently opposed to all efforts of the US government to obtain information from terrorists it has captured, and to try [[terrorist]]s as "illegal enemy combatants." <ref>[http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_wants_the_us_to_lose_the_war_on_terrorism/ ACLU Wants the US to Lose the War on Terrorism] The American Civil Rights Union, March 15, 2008</ref>

* Lobbied against any policy that would authorize security personnel at airports and border checkpoints to scrutinize travelers from terrorism-sponsoring nations

* Opposes the Computer-Assisted Passenger Profiling System (CAPPS) used by airlines to check for various passenger characteristics that have historically been correlated with terrorist activities

* Condemning the detention of immigrants apprehended in connection with post-9/11 terrorism investigations

* Held rallies on behalf of an Intel software engineer named Maher Mofeid Hawash, who U.S. officials were keeping in custody on suspicion that he had given material support to Taliban and al Qaeda forces fighting American troops in Afghanistan

* Passionately defended Sami Al-Arian, the former North American head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). In an effort to thwart the U.S. government's investigation of Al-Arian's role in funding PIJ suicide bombings in Israel

* Came to the defense of radical attorney Lynne Stewart, who in February 2005 was convicted on charges that she had illegally "facilitated and concealed communications" between her client, the incarcerated "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman, and members of his Egyptian terrorist organization, the Islamic Group, which has ties to al Qaeda

* The ACLU has launched a $8.5 million dollar effort to provide what are supposed to be "top notch" private counsel for the illegal enemy combatants facing military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Among those to be provided this assistance is the man who has, apparently, confessed to being the mastermind behind the attacks that took place on 9/11. <ref>[http://www.theacru.org/acru/aclu_aiding_americas_enemies_again/ ACLU Aiding America's Enemies, Again] The American Civil Rights Union</ref> <ref>[http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/04/the-aclu-assembles-a-terrorist-legal-defense-force-of-extraordinary-magnitude/ The ACLU assembles a terrorist legal defense force of extraordinary magnitude] Michelle Malkin, April 4, 2008</ref>

* ACLU lawyers had been present during interrogations of captured al Qaeda and Taliban enemy combatants who were being detained in Guantanamo Bay. These attorneys advised the inmates that they were under no obligation to answer military interrogators' questions

* ACLU attorney Noel Saleh "openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah."

* The INS and the Justice Department instituted a program requiring males visiting the U.S. from Arab and Muslim nations to register with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. The ACLU cried "discriminatory."

* Extremist calls for violent [[jihad]] were not uncommon in America's mosques. An FBI anti-terrorism initiative to count and document all mosques was again met with protests from the ACLU.

The ACLU's affiliations with terrorists are not restricted solely to foreigners. For instance, the organization named unrepentant [[Domestic terrorism|domestic terrorist]] [[Bill Ayers]] to its advisory board along with his wife [[Bernardine Dohrn]].

==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" ]]

==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

{{liberalism}}
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

Compean and Ramos controversy

2009-02-18T02:33:20Z

JohnnyBB:

The '''Compean and Ramos case''':

Two border guards were convicted under a law designed to punish criminals, which prohibits:

:using or carrying a [[firearm]] during and in relation to the commission of a crime of [[violence]] or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence

Defenders of the sentenced men protest that the law was not meant to curb over-zealous good guys. They note that the guards were not convicted of a "crime of violence" and argue that shooting the fleeing smuggler in the buttocks was not a "use of a fire arm" to further a crime.

==Additional Information==

The judge in this case was required by mandatory sentencing laws to impose a minimum ten years to each defendant. The sentencing laws did not grant an exemption to police and applied to anyone convicted of using a firearm in commission of a felony. Mandatory minimums have been championed by the Republican Party for many decades and it is their opinion that ''mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a lethal weapon are the only effective solution to this problem.'' <ref>http://www.ford.utexas.edu/ford_full_search.html</ref>

18 USC Sec. 92(c)(1) states: ''Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or semiautomatic assault weapon, to imprisonment for ten years'' <ref>http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/fed_cap_off/18_usc_924.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Crime]]