Difference between revisions of "Talk:ACLU"

Revision as of 19:28, April 2, 2007

"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. 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.--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. 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). 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. 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. 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
• The judge did not award over $2m in fees; the actual figure was $1m
• It was the school board itself, not its members, who were liable to pay the $1m 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?

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.--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. 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.--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. 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. 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 [1] for a summary and see the actual text here. 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.--Aschlafly 17:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Footnotes: [1] [2] (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.)--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.--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.--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.--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?--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.--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. --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.--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.--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!!--AmesG 18:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

When a case is vacated, it pretty much is a reversal. 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.--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 Lawrah 02:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Lawrah, I've tried to argue this unsuccessfully. Link to this admin to talk about it[3] You're right, though. There're some more legal errors, but they still won't correct them.--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.--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? Lawrah 23:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I added the link to the opinion 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_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." --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_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. 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_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_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. 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_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_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? 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_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, as you can see here.-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. 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_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_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. RSchlafly 00:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

"ACLU & Evolution" is a poorly formatted, biased quote that is repetitive of a previous section.-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.--Reginod 08:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I got in a shouting match with Roger for these exact changes.-AmesG_yo! 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

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

I agree with 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." ^[1] 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 ^[2], 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. --Hsmom 12:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The latest edit is a good start, thank you 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.--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. 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.--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. 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).--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. RSchlafly 15:21, 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 . --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. RSchlafly 15:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)