# Help me understand the dislike for the ACLU **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 18, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979 "2009-11-18T00:32:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/101 "2009-11-23T22:02:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As I make clear in every thread on this topic, I support democracy and local decision-making everywhere, regardless of who’s in charge. I would not object. > > Deal with it just as their ancestors did. 2,000 years of oppression, but that’s fine because it was oh so democratic? And might I remind you that the Jim Crow laws were passed democratically also. The ACLU exists in part to protect us from positions like yours. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/102 "2009-11-23T22:06:00Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Further, the ACLU is, as I understand it, not about “militant scourging of all religion” from the curriculum–Religion is, quite appropriately, in the curriculum at public schools in the study of history, and perhaps social studies. That is learning about religion. Teaching, or compelled observation of one religion is very different. Religion was given a great deal of curricular time when I was in high school. I remember it being a big part of social studies, sociology and philosophy. My sociology teacher in particular went to great lengths. We had a different speaker every week for a couple of months: A priest, a rabbi, and I think even some Hare Krishnas among others. When I was a teacher I saw some similar stuff. I think **ITR’s** “militant scourging of all religion” from public school curricula is at best an exaggeration. At worst… well, just paranoid silliness. Sorry, but there it is. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/103 "2009-11-23T22:18:24Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > The ACLU does not have a closed membership. Anyone is welcome to join. > > … > > It is not mean white people and Jim Crow Laws that are keeping poor children out of private schools. It is a lack of money. Who will pay for the poor children to go to the private schools? The government can’t even pay to keep decent public schools open now. > > I’m not entirely opposed to vouchers. But I do wonder what will be left behind in our inner cities when all of the good students pull out to go to private schools. (That shouldn’t be the concern of the good students, though.) I’ve already candidly admitted that my perception of their racial composition is shaped by only one group. Perhaps ACLU offices elsewhere are stuffed with blacks and Hispanics, but I doubt it. The fact is, however, that voucher programs provide the biggest advantages to students of those races, because students of those races typically live in urban areas that have the worst schools. Hence, killing voucher programs has an extra-large effect on minorities. For example, just look at Washington D. C., and its notorious [worst-in-the-nation](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901415.html) school system. The public school student body is [96% minority and 4% white.](http://www.publicschoolreview.com/state_statistics/stateid/DC). By contrast, the city itself is [61% minority and 39% white.](http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/11000.html) It seems that nearly all the white people send their kids to private schools, while minority kids mainly get stuck in the public schools (unless they’re named ‘Obama’). Hence an anti-voucher stance hurts blacks and Hispanics more than whites. I doubt that most ACLU members are personally racist, but it’s a plain fact that their anti-voucher stance hurts black and Hispanic kids. Studies have shown that [voucher programs not only let some kids get a better education in private schools, but also improve nearby public schools](http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09030504.html) because the competition keeps 'em honest. Vouchers also [save money](http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10254). > [@](#): > > What about the First Amendment Rights of the students who filed the complaint against the school principal and the teacher (who admit wrong-doing)? Maybe these educators should be working in private schools if they cannot respect the rights and/or the religious beliefs of other Americans in public schools. The principal and teacher could have prayed SILENTLY. While the ACLU always thumps its chest about the 1st amendment, their cases actually rest on the 14th amendment. They claim that the 1st prevents federal religious observance, while the 14th expands that to state and local. But the founders never meant the Constitution to curtail religious expression by government employees. That’s demonstrated clearly enough by the words of every president from [George Washington](http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/firsts/thanksgiving/original.html) to Barack Obama. Nor did the Congress of the reconstruction era intend for the 14th to have anything to do with the running of public schools. All of that is extra meaning tacked on by judges in the last 50 years or so. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/104 "2009-11-23T22:21:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > But the founders never meant the Constitution to curtail religious expression by government employees. And no one, even the ACLU, is claiming that government employees can’t observe religion – what they’re claiming is that you can’t do it in a way that may potentially influence students. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/105 "2009-11-23T22:36:15Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Deal with it just as their ancestors did. You mean, engage in centuries of bloody factional conflicts, pogroms, and holy wars? ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2009, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/106 "2009-11-23T22:40:39Z")
> [@](#): > > At the same time, the ACLU does object to many things done with private money. (See the link in my first post regarding Salazar v Buono for one example.) Not true. The ACLU’s issue in Salazar has nothing to do with the fact that the cross was erected with private money–but that it was erected on government land. The fact that private money is used is simply irrelevant to the issue in the case. > [@](#): > > Second, the Constitution does not say that everybody gets to be free from observance of anything remotely religious. I don’t think anyone has suggested this. For one thing, the constitution only limits the actions of federal (and after XIV, state) government. So I don’t see where you’re getting this argument. > [@](#): > > If 98 percent of the students at a ceremony want a prayer and the remaining 2 percent don’t, someone must end up with an observance that’s not the one they prefer. Unfortunate, but luckily we have a process called democracy to deal with cases like this. We have a process of democracy, subject to the constitutional protection of certain rights–such that there are things the majority can’t do, even if they want to. That is the nature of constitutional rights today–inherently antimajoritarian–for, ironically, exactly the reason you point out–that the majority gets its own way even if no rights exist. > [@](#): > > That the ACLU’s claims come from “the negotiation that formed this country” is just not true. For nearly all our history, students have prayed and studied the Bible in public school. Funnily enough, as I understand the history, Public schools weren’t systematically created as a service for all students until the middle of the nineteenth century. More importantly, public schools, as part of state governments, weren’t subject to the first amendment until 1868. So a good half of our history is simply irrelevant to his debate. > [@](#): > > Those who didn’t want to participate merely stepped out of the classroom. The system worked fine for generations. It’s only in the last couple generations that the ACLU has placed government by lawsuit ahead of democracy on this issue. Or, alternatively, the ACLU has forced the government to take our constitutional rights seriously. This is not a necessary result of that right existing. See, for example, the fact that it took nearly a hundred years to go from the Fourteenth Amendment to Brown v. Board of Education, or (assuming, arguendo, that Heller v. DC is correct, more than two centuries to go from the Second Amendment to its proper interpretation being upheld by the courts.) Should we ignore the second amendment, or repudiate Heller because the system where governments got to regulate firearm ownership has worked fine for generations? So the fact that it took a long time to effectively enforce the right is neither here nor there. Furthermore, regardless of the history–here and now, the clear understanding of federal constitutional law is that school-sponsored religious observances in public school are forbidden. To, for example, have teachers pray at the start of class is a simple violation of the law as it is now. So, just to be clear: Do you support school administrators today who intentionally choose to violate federal law, as it now stands? Do you think others should support them? > [@](#): > > Deal with it just as their ancestors did. This is exactly why the right is protected–to stop people deciding that others should just “deal with it.” ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/107 "2009-11-24T00:29:50Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > There are plenty of parents in America whose religion is Jewish, Muslim, or miscellaneous other, but who choose to send their children to Christian schools. > _snip_ > Governing public schools democratically would satisfy almost everyone… What would happen if enough non-Catholics–say, 7th-Day Adventists–began going to a Catholic school that the majority was able to get religious instruction to include some themes that blatantly violate Catholic teachings? > [@](#): > > …governing them by lawsuits makes almost everyone unhappy. You mean governing them by law? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/108 "2009-11-24T02:17:59Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > It would appear that they’re less frightened about a few daily minutes of prayer in a Christian school than about the militant scourging of all religion from the curriculum in the public schools. **ITR** , what exactly is that you want? Do you want students to be educated thoroughly immersed in religious environment so as to bring down divine intervention, or so that a lot of students become Saved, or at very least that they grow up to be highly religious citizens? Or are you saying, what’s the big deal, it’s only the occasional little non-sectarian prayer? If that’s the case, then what _is_ the big deal? What religious profit is there in religious expression so watered down that anything less amounts to a “militant scourging of all religion”? (Nice victim playing there, Hamlet. These aren’t cases where the ACLU is simply being extreme sticklers for Separation of Church and State, no, they’re militantly assaulting religion, and getting it out of government is just the beginning. ) It seems to me that the more significant an expression is religiously, the more significant it is constitutionally. And we have to draw the line somewhere, you know. ---
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/109 "2009-11-24T05:01:31Z")
This just in from the NY Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/24crime.html?exprod=myyahoo](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/24crime.html?exprod=myyahoo) None other than Ed Meese realizes that an organization like the ACLU has its place in protecting Constitutional rights. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/110 "2009-11-24T05:16:22Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I… The public school student body is [96% minority and 4% white.](http://www.publicschoolreview.com/state_statistics/stateid/DC). By contrast, the city itself is [61% minority and 39% white.](http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/11000.html) Those numbers suggest that there is a good deal of confusion about the meaning of the word “minority.” ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/111 "2009-11-24T06:14:02Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > Those numbers suggest that there is a good deal of confusion about the meaning of the word “minority.” Whites are a minority, blacks are plurality in DC. That data set, at least as it was presented by **ITR** is somewhat confusing, yes. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/112 "2009-11-24T17:01:58Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > Those numbers suggest that there is a good deal of confusion about the meaning of the word “minority.” Not really. The word “minority” is commonly used in the United States to refer to racial groups other than whites. However, if you don’t like it, you may mentally replace each occurrence of it with “blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and various other groups that represent only a tiny fraction of the population.” None of that, however, has much effect on the main argument that our current system allows the wealthy, chiefly white population to have a good education in private schools, while confining large sections of the poor, chiefly black and Hispanic population to crummy, inner-city public schools. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/113 "2009-11-24T17:27:22Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > Not true. The ACLU’s issue in Salazar has nothing to do with the fact that the cross was erected with private money–but that it was erected on government land. The fact that private money is used is simply irrelevant to the issue in the case. The cross was not erected on government land. It was erected as a monument to American soldiers on unclaimed land, which later became part of a federal preserve. No government effort has ever been put into it in any way, shape, or form. The ACLU’s claim is that because one person finds it “offensive”, it needs to be torn down. Nothing in the Constitution can rationally be construed as meaning that war memorials on government land should be vandalized at taxpayers expense merely because there’s a person who finds them offensive. > [@](#): > > Funnily enough, as I understand the history, Public schools weren’t systematically created as a service for all students until the middle of the nineteenth century. More importantly, public schools, as part of state governments, weren’t subject to the first amendment until 1868. So a good half of our history is simply irrelevant to his debate. The time up to 1868 is not a good half our history. Of the time when the Constitution has been in effect, it’s barely a third. But, in any case, judges did not start reaching these far-fetched conclusions about the fourteenth amendment demanding a ban on all religious expressions on government property until the late 20th century. The fourteenth was intended to protect people from slavery, unlawful imprisonment, and so forth. The Congressmen who passed the it in 1868 would be utterly baffled by the way that the ACLU uses it to enforce censorship. > [@](#): > > Or, alternatively, the ACLU has forced the government to take our constitutional rights seriously. This is not a necessary result of that right existing. See, for example, the fact that it took nearly a hundred years to go from the Fourteenth Amendment to Brown v. Board of Education, or (assuming, arguendo, that Heller v. DC is correct, more than two centuries to go from the Second Amendment to its proper interpretation being upheld by the courts.) Should we ignore the second amendment, or repudiate Heller because the system where governments got to regulate firearm ownership has worked fine for generations? > > So the fact that it took a long time to effectively enforce the right is neither here nor there. > > Furthermore, regardless of the history–here and now, the clear understanding of federal constitutional law is that school-sponsored religious observances in public school are forbidden. To, for example, have teachers pray at the start of class is a simple violation of the law as it is now. That is the clear understanding of people who understand it that way, which is certainly not everybody. It is certainly not a straightforward interpretation of the words of the Constitution, nor is it based on the intent of the founders, nor is it traditional, nor is it based on popular opinion. So, in the final analysis, it’s based on the decision of a few judges in very recent times, and nothing more. And, of course, there’s no guarantee that judges will maintain this odd interpretation indefinitely. As I said in my first post, the ACLU governs by lawsuit for a reason. There is no way that the voting public would ever choose, through it legislators, to imprison people for praying, or to vandalize crosses erected in honor of our soldiers, or to censor the publications of local governments, or any of the other bizarre attacks on free expression that the ACLU routinely makes. Hence, the ACLU’s only hope in these cases is the uses the judiciary to overrule democracy. To point to historical cases in which the judiciary overruled law justly does make not the process just in these cases. > [@](#): > > So, just to be clear: Do you support school administrators today who intentionally choose to violate federal law, as it now stands? Do you think others should support them? I will answer by quoting the [words](http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html') of another man who went to jail for saying things that the government disapproved of. > [@Martin Luther King](#): > > One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/114 "2009-11-24T17:52:02Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I will answer by quoting the [words](http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html') of another man who went to jail for saying things that the government disapproved of. That’s a pretty good quote. Here’s another one, from the same gentleman, on the subject of the courts finding against prayer in public school: > [@](#): > > “I endorse it. I think it was correct,” King said. “Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in God. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken, and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right. I am strongly opposed to the efforts that have been made to nullify the decision. They have been motivated, I think, by little more than the wish to embarrass the Supreme Court. When I saw Brother Wallace going up to Washington to testify against the decision at the congressional hearings, it only strengthened my conviction that the decision was right.” From here: [http://blog.au.org/2006/01/13/speaking\_truth\_/](http://blog.au.org/2006/01/13/speaking_truth_/) Brother Wallace is, of course, Alabama segregationist George Wallace. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/115 "2009-11-24T21:26:47Z")
Again, **ITR** , you seem to be more interseted in playing the victim and indulging in hyperbole rather than clarifying what you think the proper role of religion in government should be. After all, religion consists of a lot of dubious and often contradictory claims about supernatural forces. Shouldn’t government be reality-based? It’s one thing to condone a bit of “ceremonial deism” slipping through, but we don’t rely on majoritarianism to tell us that one religion is right and the others–and science–are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/116 "2009-11-24T21:56:22Z")
I don’t believe that government should be entangled with religion at all, neither for promoting it nor for vilifying it and trying to stamp it out in schools or anywhere else. A voucher program that allowed parents to choose their child’s school would be ideal, as it would reduce conflicts about religion in schools while also saving taxpayer money and improving education. With such a program in place, there would be more customers for private education, and we’d see more groups (secular and religious) setting up schools and more choice for everyone. In the meantime, however, I find it perfectly reasonable to have a law like the one we had in Kentucky until a judge shot it down, where the students got to vote on whether to have a prayer at graduation. Most people who work in public schools do not view themselves as part of a government, but rather as teachers and support staff. They entered education because they wanted to help kids. That’s also how the students at the community at large view them: as educators, not as part of government. Basic things like prayers at graduation and sporting events are parts of a ceremony that most people don’t associate with the government at all. When a majority of participants want them, having them is natural. Having the courts intervene to ban them is, by contrast, a major intrusion of the government into community life. (And I think that government is roughly the least “reality-based” organization in the world, as demonstrated by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, corn ethanol requirements, Cash for Clunkers, and countless other examples. Having the federal government attack anyone else on the grounds that they make “dubious and often contradictory claims” is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.) ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/117 "2009-11-24T22:06:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I don’t believe that government should be entangled with religion at all, neither for promoting it nor for vilifying it and trying to stamp it out in schools or anywhere else. The first part of your sentence is why they are doing the second part. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/118 "2009-11-24T23:52:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I don’t believe that government should be entangled with religion at all, neither for promoting it nor for vilifying it and trying to stamp it out in schools or anywhere else. How do you propose disentangling government and religion, when you are adamantly opposed to any effort to prevent the government from funding religious observances? In these threads, you’ve consistently characterized any attempts to keep government religiously neutral as an unconscionable intrusion of government into people’s religious freedoms. Can you provide an example (hypothetical, if necessary, but real world would be ideal) of a government taking a positive stand on religion that you would view as an unconstitutional entanglement of government and religion? > [@](#): > > In the meantime, however, I find it perfectly reasonable to have a law like the one we had in Kentucky until a judge shot it down, where the students got to vote on whether to have a prayer at graduation. Most people who work in public schools do not view themselves as part of a government, but rather as teachers and support staff. They entered education because they wanted to help kids. That’s also how the students at the community at large view them: as educators, not as part of government. Basic things like prayers at graduation and sporting events are parts of a ceremony that most people don’t associate with the government at all. When a majority of participants want them, having them is natural. Having the courts intervene to ban them is, by contrast, a major intrusion of the government into community life. Regardless of how they view themselves, how is someone who receives their paycheck from the government anything other than an employee of the government? What standard are you using to define whether someone is part of the government or not? The only reasoning I see here is how the person views his role. If a congressperson says that he doesn’t “view himself as part of the government,” and only got into the field because he wants to “help people,” does that make him not a part of the government, and therefore, immune to laws regulating government action? If not, how is our hypothetical congressperson different from teachers? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/119 "2009-11-25T00:14:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I don’t believe that government should be entangled with religion at all, neither for promoting it nor for vilifying it and trying to stamp it out in schools or anywhere else. A voucher program that allowed parents to choose their child’s school would be ideal, as it would reduce conflicts about religion in schools while also saving taxpayer money and improving education. With such a program in place, there would be more customers for private education, and we’d see more groups (secular and religious) setting up schools and more choice for everyone. > > In the meantime, however, I find it perfectly reasonable to have a law like the one we had in Kentucky until a judge shot it down, where the students got to vote on whether to have a prayer at graduation. Most people who work in public schools do not view themselves as part of a government, but rather as teachers and support staff. They entered education because they wanted to help kids. That’s also how the students at the community at large view them: as educators, not as part of government. Basic things like prayers at graduation and sporting events are parts of a ceremony that most people don’t associate with the government at all. When a majority of participants want them, having them is natural. Having the courts intervene to ban them is, by contrast, a major intrusion of the government into community life. > > (And I think that government is roughly the least “reality-based” organization in the world, as demonstrated by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, corn ethanol requirements, Cash for Clunkers, and countless other examples. Having the federal government attack anyone else on the grounds that they make “dubious and often contradictory claims” is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.) If a majority of students are devout Catholics and decide the school should pray a novena to the Blessed Virgin, should that be binding on other students? Is having a religious faith a prerequisite to playing football? ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979/120 "2009-11-25T00:52:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Basic things like prayers at graduation and sporting events are parts of a ceremony that most people don’t associate with the government at all. When a majority of participants want them, having them is natural. Having the courts intervene to ban them is, by contrast, a major intrusion of the government into community life. The these people are just plain wrong because public schools are government intitutions and that’s all there is to it. > [@](#): > > (And I think that government is roughly the least “reality-based” organization in the world, as demonstrated by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, corn ethanol requirements, Cash for Clunkers, and countless other examples. Having the federal government attack anyone else on the grounds that they make “dubious and often contradictory claims” is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.) Don’t be ridiculous. These recent issues are far, far, FAR too narrow to be definitional of secular government as a basic principle to be upheld. And even so, they were indeed reality-based: Global warming and attacks by WMDs are reality-based fears; fears of evil spells or the wrath of God are not. Reducing inefficient fuel consumption and sending in troops are reality-based solutions; prayer or sending in witch doctors are not. It’s also reality-based to acknowledge that the government is fallible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-me-understand-the-dislike-for-the-aclu/517979.md?page=7)