Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom

Objection to recent edit

I strongly oppose this recent edit to the article -- the ADF has done a lot of good work on religious liberty issues and has strongly defended the religious liberty of Christians on numerous different issues. They are even brave enough to defend young Earth creationists (AiG, Andrew Snelling, etc.). They are clearly conservative and pro-religious liberty -- and they have a "badge of honor" from the SPLC to prove they are truly conservative. So despite all this, we're going to completely defame them and treat them almost like a leftist organization simply because they chose not to take a position on the travel ban?

Two things here: considering that the ADF exists to protect religious liberty, I'm not surprised that they didn't take a position on a case that is about immigration and national security. Also, keep in mind that they didn't oppose the Trump Administration in the case -- they simply didn't take a position. Also, there really should be a source that their leadership is part of the "Never Trump" movement. This isn't enough for me to harshly attack them in the article's intro.

I am OK leaving all of the info in the article, but the intro should be rephrased closer to how it was before. Taking no position on a non-religious liberty case is not enough to defame the organization. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

I have an open mind about this, but there was a "coup" at ADF in early 2017 and Never Trumpers apparently took over. ADF was a great organization but today it looks more like yet another anti-Trump group. Its stinging statement of neutrality on Trump's attempt to protect our country is striking and insulting. If you can point to good conservative work ADF has done since its coup, such as filing amicus briefs against a right to abortion by illegal aliens, I'd love to see it. I don't think the new ADF has done so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

The ADF has done a lot of good conservative work since this "coup" (and seriously, are there any sources on this? -- I'm interested in this, even outside of our debate here):

• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
• Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
• Arlene's Flowers v. State of Washington | Arlene's Flowers v. Ingersoll
• Rowan County v. Lund

The above are only cases that were recently decided in the Supreme Court or are currently pending. It's obviously doing more in the lower courts. In May 2017, the ADF filed a lawsuit for creation scientist Andrew Snelling because the National Park Service was discriminating against him. How many legal organizations today would help a young Earth creationist?

• The ADF praised Trump's first 100 days: [1] The ADF priased several other Trump Administration actions: [2][3][4]

It's clear that the ADF is a conservative organization that is devoted to religious liberty. I wouldn't be surprised if they're not perfect (but we can find flaws in pretty much every conservative figure or organization if we look hard enough), but their record, even after 2016, is really good. I am OK with including info about not taking a position on the travel ban case (as I mentioned above), but turning this article into a literal attack page against the ADF (rather than simply criticizing its shortcomings) is over-the-top.

And as I stated above, the travel ban case has nothing to do with religious liberty--it's about national security, which is irrelevant to the ADF's mission. I don't see why the ADF needs to take a position on it. That's like saying a pro-Second Amendment organization should take a position on Trump's tariffs, or that an America First immigration organization should take a position on Trump's pro-life actions, or that a pro-life organization needs to take a position on the Trump Administration's deregulatory actions. It's great if they do take conservative positions on these issues, but it's outside the scope of their missions. It's the same for the ADF. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2018 (EDT)

The coup at ADF occurred early in January 2017, between Trump's election and his inauguration. Perhaps a faction at ADF remained Never Trump and wanted to turn in that direction.

In 2015, ADF participated in about 22 cases before the Supreme Court. But after the coup, from mid-2017 through the present, ADF has participated in only about 9 Supreme Court cases -- less than one-third its prior annual output. After the coup, ADF was notably absence in Trump's opposition to a right to abortion by illegal aliens (Azar v. Garza), and in David Daleiden's important case.

None of your above-cited cases are leading-edge cases on the abortion issue. NIFLA is really a free speech case, whose decision will probably be issued tomorrow (Monday at 10am). The Masterpiece Cakeshop case was initiated by ADF before the Supreme Court prior to ADF's coup. The NC case is a factually simple Establishment Clause case.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2018 (EDT)

P.S. Surprised by your statement about ADF supposedly praising Trump's first 100 days, I clicked on your link. ADF merely praised only 4 actions taken by Trump during his entire first 100 days, without really praising Trump himself. Two of those four actions were the appointments of people favored by ADF; the other two were straightforward reinstatements of prior policies of Republican Administrations. Notably absent is any praise by ADF of Trump on his flagship issues like immigration policy.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2018 (EDT)

I just went and found this document mentioned in the new intro, and was pleasantly surprised to find that it is not unreadable due to jargon and legal stuff no ordinary person can understand. While I don't support ADF's decision to not take a stand, I'm not surprised either. They are focusing on free speech, the sanctity of life, and freedom of religion. Anyway, I set to reading through it, and found the quote Andy posted on the main page. I also found this interesting quote:

There is simply no justification for barring the Executive Branch’s implementation of its immigration and national security policies based on tweets, public relations puff, and video posts. Courts are not empowered to sift unofficial and passing comments in search of evidence discrediting officials’ heart of hearts.

As you read on, it seems that their explanation for not taking an official stand, however, is the Lemon test. They argue that although ADF is a religious organization, the Establishment Clause should not apply to them in this situation. The Lemon test has tainted the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and deviates from its true purpose. They say that "Lemon, as modified by the endorsement test, is flawed at its foundations. It trades objective fact for subjective intent—and even then not officials’ actual intent or purpose but what a fictional observer might wrongly believe that intent to be."

Admittedly, I did not read all of this filing, but I did go through a good portion. It can be found here: [5]

It sounds to me like they are saying there is not reason for Trump's order to not be upheld based solely on personal words of officials. However, they do not believe that they are allowed to take an official stand, due to the Lemon test. Am I misunderstanding this? --David B ^(TALK) 19:01, 25 June 2018 (EDT)

Also, let me respond to Andy's latest comments.[6][7]

Why does ADF need to praise Trump's immigration policy? Their mission is free speech and religious liberty -- immigration isn't their focus, and that's what groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies or NumbersUSA are for. Does a pro-second Amendment group have to praise Trump's immigration or trade policies? Does a pro-life group have to praise Trump's deregulatory agenda? It's a good thing if they do, but they don't have to, because these issues lie outside their missions and focus. The ADF focuses on religious liberty and free speech (as the latter relates to religious liberty), and in that area, it does great.

Considering that the ADF focuses on religious liberty, it makes complete sense that it only praised the actions of the Trump Administration relating to religious liberty. The ADF (like most conservative organizations) specializes in one particular area, so it would appropriately comment on one particular area of the administration's policies (the policies as they relate to religious liberty). Considering that we conservatives support Trump because of his strongly conservative policies (if Trump governed like Bush, Kasich, or Guiliani, we wouldn't support him), I don't see why it's damning that it's not praising Trump as a person. Also, on the links that I provided, one link was an entirely new policy (the DOJ's religious freedom guidance), and another was the administration withdrawing an Obama Administration policy.

All of the cases I linked are related to the ADF's mission. It's unfortunate that it didn't get involved in the illegal alien abortion case, and we can criticize it for that, but we should not condemn the entire organization in the first sentence of the article's intro simply because of this one unfortunate incident.

Bottom line: the ADF has its flaws (duh!), like almost every conservative and conservative organization, but overall, it is on the right track, standing for the religious liberty (it's sole focus) of Christians (including creationists), things that the vast majority of legal organizations refuse to do. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2018 (EDT)

ADF's brief says on its cover that it does not support Trump (or the other side). We won't have the Court's decision for another 24 or 48 hours or so, but ADF's refusal to support Trump is harmful, and people should be fully aware of that. Will it impact the decision? It might. Likewise, ADF's silence in the recent precedent-setting illegal-alien abortion case is objectionable. ADF boasts that the sanctity of life is one of its primary missions. So why did it remain silent in the case? (In response to David above, nothing in the Lemon test requires ADF to sit on the sidelines when its help is needed.)

Amicus briefs that expressly disavow being in support of either party are unusual. ADF went out of its way to do this, and that does not advance religious liberty or the sanctity of life. Moreover, ADF's disclaimer in its amicus brief is also unusual. Why did it undercut Trump like this? A reasonable inference is that Never-Trumpers who seized control of the organization in January 2017 had something to do with this.

It's fine to criticize the Never-Trumpers on the Left. But they aren't the only ones, and when that potentially hurts us in precedent-setting Supreme Court decisions, criticism is essential.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2018 (EDT)