This is just getting ridiculous, Shodan. You ignore 90% of the points that have been made, and use slippery slope arguments and straw men to argue the other 10%.
You keep calling this a witch hunt and saying that our feelings are hurt because he’s religious. That’s crap. Show me a single cite where I claimed any such nonsense. I said he can pray to any damn god he chooses, on his own. He can do it at work, outside of work, with his fellow fundies, with his wife, his mistress, his mistress’ boyfriend, Jenna Bush, Pat Buchanan, etc. He can’t put on a prayer meeting and “voluntarily” invite his subordinates. Period. That’s the point. The only point. Yes, that’s it. Any questions where I stand on this?
For the record, I’m the only non-believer in my entire circle of friends. I have no problem with their beliefs nor the discussion thereof. They are my peers, after all.
You keep talking about how the first amendment is there to protect the rights of those to practice their religions in any way they see fit. The first amendment is actually to protect the rights of all. It protects both those who wish to practice and (here comes the all important point;pay attention) those who don’t. I’ve given you all the evidence you need to try and get a grasp on the establishment clause, but you just ignore it as if it was a footnote to the amendment.
If you wish to actually have a debate about this, start over at the beginning of the thread, and read all of the points that you find. After you have finished, if you still have issues with anyone’s stand on absolutely anything, post it here. If they haven’t been addressed at least twice, I’ll gladly respond. If you keep ignoring all of the points, expect to be ignored.
Thanks, Shodan, for the best post on the entire thread.
DMC, I’m sympathetic to your frustration, but look at it from the other side. Isn’t it too much to expect Shodan to respond precisely to the argument made by each specific poster? Each point he responded to was made by someone, but Ashcroft’s opponents have a different legal and moral positions.
E.g., they have said that his bible study class is
– un-Constitutional
– Constitutional, but illegal
– Constitutional and legal, but inapproprate
Reasons given for inappropriateness included:
– They meet at work. It would be OK if they met elsewhere.
– He’s their boss; it would be inapropriate even if they met elsewhere.
– improper at any time, any place since Ashcroft’s job is 24/7
– Only religious group activity is inappropriate. Other group activites are OK.
– Any group activities would be equally inapproprate
– It’s improper if it leads to favoritism,
– It’s improper even if it hasn’t led to favoritism, because it could
– it engenders an uncomfortable feeling in some people, which constitutes harm
– It’s a kind of harassment
– etc.
Some of these claims were supported by analogies, but most were simply a poster’s statement of, “This is the way it ought to be.”
I’ll concede that there is a large gap of where on the “wrongness” scale this behavior falls. I started my argument on the side of it being inappropriate, but moved towards the unconstitutional side after a little research.
Maybe we should take baby steps here. Can we first argue the appropriateness of his actions, using the analogous cites that have been thoroughly stated?
You’ll find that I’m likely to settle for the answer falling somewhere in the middle, unless I have more evidence to convince me otherwise.
December you summed up some of the main problems very nicely, although it is beyond me how you can claim Shodan’s post is the “best one in the entire thread”. What Shodan has failed to realize is that there are arguments all over this thread that address most if not all of his (and your, I believe) objections. DMC was correct when he told Shodan, “You ignore 90% of the points that have been made, and use slippery slope arguments and straw men to argue the other 10%.” These techniques have been called out since the beginning of the discussion, but that does not stop people, especially newcomers to the discussion, from trying them over and over again.
I have objections to this statement, which appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation of one side in this argument:
I believe a careful reading of this thread will demonstrate precisely the opposite of what you claim. I have been calling out several obtuse analogies and metaphors since the start of the discussion–and they keep being made, most recently by Shodan. On the other hand, I think I have seen fewer such analogies made by those who think Ashcroft is out of line.
No one is saying “this is the way it ought to be”. We have provided reams of reasons and arguments supported by a variety of evidence. Most of these arguments are yet to be addressed by those who think Ashcroft is doing no harm. Raising the bar, deliberately ignoring points, and flat-out denial are not valid arguments and will not be accepted by those who are establishing a position by using reasoning.
The real question is WHY can’t Ashcroft have his bible study at home or at church, where it belongs?
Unless he is a priest (and he’s not) bible study doesn’t belong at his job. It wouldn’t be appropriate at a private job, let alone a public one. My tax dollars are being used for the electricity to light up the light bulbs in his office as he wastes our time and money reading his stupid fairy-tales on our dime… not to mention the “gee my boss is having bible study… should i go? I really want to get ahead in the DOJ!” I understand coercion is a basic tenet of christianity - but that doesnt mean this is okay. Far from okay.
Every minute Ashcroft is in his office - I don’t care if he gets there an hour early for bible-fun-time - is an hour wasted … an hour he could have spent enforcing existing gun laws (as the Republicristians said Reno wasn’t doing, which is true - she didn’t). His job isn’t to read (or as they like to say - “study”) fairy tales. His job is to enforce the laws of this country, not walk on the thin lines of them. Constitutional, unconstitutional… what’s more important is that it is just wrong, tasteless, unethical (even though he does it thinking it is the pinnacle of ethics), and irresponsible.
Should he leave his faith at the door? You bet. And if his faith would influence his decision in any case, he should recuse himself (as should any judge). There is absolutely no reason why he can’t have bible study at home, or at church.
Sorry about the length of this post but I don’t want to be guilty of what I am combating. Namely only responding to the points of the opposition that are marginal and extraneous to the central point.
Well guess what bucko, the First Amendment’s special protection of religion covers MY religion to. By case law and the Civil Rights act the constitution gives me the right to earn a living without being coerced to join in someone elses religious activity. When the AG is holding bible classes in his office at work with my coworkers that is exactly what is going on.
But why do you keep returning to it. There is no way MY constitutional right to freedom of religion or the protections I enjoy via the Civil Rights Act could possibly be effected by a Gay support group or AA, etc. They are not promoting religion. Ashcroft IS.
Because we have a Civil Rights Act that prohibits my employer from treating his employees differently based on their religion. You know like inviting only those of his religion to private meetings in his office.
They don’t have the same effect. We have this little thing in the USA called the Civil Rights Act that prohibits my employer from treating his employees differently based on their religion. You know like inviting only those of his religion to private meetings in his office.
Well I would like him to refrain, while in the office, from calling for the elimination of rights for the groups doesn’t like. I would think this would be covered by the same section of the Civil Rights Act as your other examples.
You lost me. If an employee goes to these meetings he will have access to Ashcroft that his fellow employees do not. What evidence is required to show that. That is what the original news story that started this thread was all about.
“I could while away the hours, conferrin’ with the flowers Consultin’ with the rain.”
No one has said this but you. No one objects to Aschroft doing what ever he likes off duty. It is holding religious instruction in the AG’s office during the work day that is being objected to here.
Nope. If that were all that was going on there would be no discussion. You see we there are recognised limitations on both the free exercise of religion and free speech. When you use either as a weapon against an employee then you have used your “rights” to violate the rights of another. What Ashcroft’s defenders seem incapable of understanding is that other people besides Ashcroft have rights. I know it is a big leap but go with me here. I have the same rights as he does. He has the right not to be pressured by his boss to join in religious expression that he does not approve of. I have the right not to be pressured by my boss to join in religious expression that I do not approve of.
No religion involved no rights to violate. Read the Civil Rights Act. There are no protections in it for homophobes.
Civil Rights Act. Read it. It makes it illegal for an employer to treat employees differently based on what religion they follow.
Absolutely! I have argued that all along. No employer of any religion should use religion the way Ascroft is. The other examples are completely irrelevant for the reasons I have given.
All it takes is one of Ashcroft’s Bible Buddies to get a promotion ahead of a non-Christian coworker and I think a lawsuit would be very likely. Why would a lawyer set himself up for that? I think Ashcroft has spent too much time as a Senator and Governor. He has been above the law for so long he has forgotten that he has to play by the rules just like the rest of us.
From the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Segregating his employees by religion in deciding who gets unusual access to him in the workplace is a violation of this act. Please note that segregating them by baseball or gay rights is not in any way addressed by this act.
I have given this evidence before and you have never addressed it so I don’t expect you to do so now. It is evidence however so at least stop posting your strained. “No one has ever posted any evidence of any wrong doing” nonsense.
Also please note that the Civil Rights Act does not require malice. The actions can be completely innocent in intent. It is only the result of these actions that are addressed.
Degrance, thank you for a clear statement of your positions and their justifications. You are saying that Ashcorft’s meetings are illegal because they violate the Civil Rights Act.
Your argument makes sense, but I’m not sure I agree. Problem is, I don’t know enough about how the the Civil Rights Act has been interpreted, so I can’t make fine distinctons. Your statement that it “prohibits my employer from treating his employees differently based on their religion,” is overly broad. In fact, there are cases where the Act requires that employees be treated differently; e.g. when accomodation is made for Jewish employees working on the Sabbath.
Can you provide more specific details on the wording and interpretation of the Civil Rights Act?
I have trouble believing that Ashcroft ever made such public statements. Degrance, what is your evidence? Your accusation is libelous, unless it can be backed up with facts. Please provide evidence or withdraw your statement.
Also, what should we do about a boss whose public statements indicate that he doesn’t respect the rights of people of other religions? Even if he doesn’t conduct bible study at work, he is prejudiced. This issue is separate from the bible reading.
IMHO it’s OK for a prejudiced person to be a boss, provided that his management decisions aren’t affected by his prejudice – decisions like hiring, firing, promotion, salary, job assignments, etc. I would guess that the Civil Rights Act refers tomanagment actions, but not to personal actions. Is any poster a labor lawyer, who can help?
Again, a serious accusation, that should only be made with strong evidence. Please provide evidence that he “called for the elimination of rights for the groups doesn’t like,” or withdraw the statement.
Again, ‘access’ is only a legal problem if it is shown that it led to different management behavior.
Used as a weapon against an employee? Huh? I agree that if Ashcroft hits a subordinate over the head with a heavy bible, then he has violated her civil rights. Seriously, if Ashcroft and his friends say to me, “You Jews killed Christ,” then they have used religion as a weapon against me. If they read the New Testament in the privacy of an office, then they haven’t.
I agree. If evidence of favoritism is ever shown, then Ashcroft will be in trouble, and properly so. (BTW there is some evidence of racial favoritism; Ashocroft has appointed a disproportionate number of Blacks to high positions.)
Good legal point about the CRA treating religion differently from baseball. However, the bible meetings alone don’t “deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee.” If and when Ashcroft shows favoritism in promotions, raises, etc, then he’s in violation, IMHO. IANAL. I again invite you lawyers to address this point.
Part of the issue here (and this is from experience with gender discrimination) is that it can be hard to prove that discrimination has or hasn’t happened because of participation or lack of participation in these events. That doesn’t mean the government wouldn’t end up in court and incur huge court costs defending themselves from the allegation, and take a potential PR hit (“JD is faces class action suit by Jewish employees”). Which is way avoiding the “appearence of impropriety” is often nearly as important to a corporations legal and hr departments as avoiding the impropriety itself. Now, granted, any court costs and legal fees the fed would incur would be a drop in the bucket for the fed.
Source: By Libby Quaid, Associated Press in Washington Post Jan 17,
2001
Governor Ashcroft signed into law Missouri’s first hate-crimes bill. In 1988, Governor Ashcroft signed the Institutional Vandalism – Intimidation Act into law. Among its many provisions, the law defined the crime of ethnic intimidation and provided protection from crimes motivated by race, color, religion or national origin. (1988 Mo. Legis. Serv. S.B. 678 [Vernon]) (emphasis added)
– Senate Judiciary Committee, Jan. 16, 2001
Ashcroft, ibid.
Thanks, december, both for the kind words and for re-stating some of my points better than I did.
That having been said, I was right the first time. This is going nowhere.
Degrange accuses Ashcroft of violating the Civil Rights Act in that he has segregated his employees based on their religion. Since the Bible studies in question a) occur away from work hours, and b) are open to all, and c) are entirely voluntary, Ashcroft has segregated no one. Is it possible that Ashcroft could, at some time in the future, promote someone or demote them based on their religion? Yes, it is. But should we proactively prevent him from exercising his rights under the Constitution because someone is afraid that he might abuse them? There are no rights that cannot be abused.
I have re-read this entire thread. In all honesty, I do not see how I have ignored evidence.
Most of the accusations against Mr. Ashcroft are based on a layman’s understanding of the Civil Rights Act, or what some Human Resources departments say. So have mine - IANAL. This law and these policies are designed (as far as I can tell) to protect the rights of employees while they are performing their jobs, and to protect them from adverse action being taken against them as a result of their religion, or lack of it.
Since these Bible studies do not occur during work hours, and no one can show any adverse action taken against anyone as their result, I do not see how this evidence proves anyone’s point.
And DMC writes:
No, it’s quite clear. What isn’t clear is why. You put “voluntarily” in quotes, I assume to show that these sessions are not voluntary, but really coerced. Do you have any reason to believe that they are? Keep in mind that not all of Ashcroft’s colleagues and subordinates attend these sessions, and have suffered nothing as a result.
Or:
We have already heard how members of this thread wish to remove the protection of the First Amendment from Mr. Ashcroft. The stated justification is that he is somehow violating the rights of non-believers by practicing his religion in his spare time. You (and others) keep saying so, over and over again. Your only justification, however, seems to be your belief that the simple fact that John Ashcroft practices his religion in his spare time, and invites others to join with him in their spare time, somehow violates the rights of those who choose not to participate.
I don’t see that.
You haven’t proved that anyone is harmed because they don’t participate. You haven’t proved that anyone is unfairly rewarded because they do. You haven’t proved that any coercion is taking place, and you need at least one of these three things before you can justify removing Mr. Ashcroft’s rights.
And from Degrange:
Yes, it certainly does. If you wish to practice your religion during your off work hours, and to ask others to join you, feel free. Please follow Mr. Ashcroft’s example and use no coercion, or you will be violating the law.
If this is what you mean by ‘proof’ of your point, it does not exactly address what I am asking for. If you are asked for concrete examples of how people are being harmed by off duty religion, and you respond (essentially) “Do so!”, I do not see a point that must be addressed.
I repeat, why do you believe this is so? Why is protected religious speech to be silenced, and other forms of speech allowed?
You are, I am afraid, mistaken. All employees are welcomed to the Bible studies, regardless of religion. One of the regular attendees is Jewish.
Nope, wrong twice. Reread the thread for previous posters alleging that Ashcroft is Attorney General 24 hours a day, and therefore disqualified from leading Bible studies. And the Bible studies are not held during the work day, nor in Ashcroft’s office. Sheesh, talk about me not reading the thread!
Finally, some posters have suggested that Mr. Ashcroft should not lead Bible studies, even if he is vindicated in the end for doing so, because he might get sued. A valid point, but in my view there is such a thing as standing up for your principles. If we are prevented by harassment from exercising our rights, we have lost a good part of our freedom. Sort of like the controversy over SLAP lawsuits of a couple of years ago. And I find it hard to believe that certain liberal groups will not be digging away like mad trying to find a lawsuit they can use to get back at Republicans for impeaching Clinton.
I feel like I am repeating myself. I usually take that as a sign that my debate opponents and I have exchanged arguments, and found them lacking. Oh well.
I’ll address your Ashcroft quotes in a future post. Just so we’ll all understand where you are coming from in this issue, I’d like to pose a couple of questions.
Would you define your understanding of the establishment clause of the First Amendment? Please elaborate on how you feel this has an affect on the issue at hand.
Do you believe that a teacher has the right to incorporate their religious beliefs in a classroom environment, in any way, shape, or form? If so, give examples of what you find acceptable and unacceptable.
Do you consider crimes against homosexuals to be hate crimes? (Your honor, bear with me. I can show a relationship).
Do you stand behind a women’s right to choose on the abortion issue, or do you think that the state should decide that? (Yes, your honor, this is also relevant)
That Congress (and by extension, the Federal government) may not force any person to practice a given religion, nor interfere with any person practicing his or her religion, providing the person involved does not interfere with the rights of others to practice or not. The fact that the Bill of Rights specifically enumerates the right of religious practice means that the state must meet a high standard of proof that action is necessary before it takes some action to prevent religious speech or expression. All other things being equal, therefore, the state should do nothing.
Since Ashcroft is leading his Bible study during his off hours, and taking no action against anyone for attending or not, no establishment of religion is taking place. Thus the standard is quite high to show that the state has any reason to prevent religious expression from occurring. The fact that Ashcroft is Attorney General in no way affects his rights under the Constitution.
I (honest!) don’t want to quibble, but “in any way, shape, or form”? That is too sweeping.
What I mean is that I can imagine a teacher who holds a religious belief that all humans are valued creatures of God. Based on that belief, she works extra hours tutoring her pupils because she feels that God is calling her to do so. I would call that “incorporating religious beliefs in a classroom environment”. No, I wouldn’t object to that.
Or suppose the same teacher also teaches Sunday School. Some of her public school pupils also attend her Sunday School class. Is this objectionable? No, I wouldn’t say so, since I would presume the childrens’ parents would consent to this. There are a number of churches in my area who rent space in local school gymnasia to hold Sunday services during non-school hours. I see nothing wrong with that. I don’t think you can identify certain buildings as religion-free zones, even when they are not being used for a secular purpose. Thus Ashcroft’s Bible study is not a violation by virtue of the fact that it is held in a public building.
I would not, however, say that a teacher should be allowed to lead a Bible study with the intent to evangelize during school hours. The issue might be a little muddier if she had unanimous consent from all the parents of all her pupils, but she could never compel anyone to attend.
If the same teacher were an atheist, and wished to hold an atheist meeting after school hours, open to all, and all those who attended were either adults, or had the full consent of their parents, sure. Same for gay meetings, Bible studies, photography clubs, football practice, whatever. Provided all were competing on an equal footing, used no coercion to collect members, and were not singled out for special treatment based on attendence, go ahead.
It depends on the motivation of the criminal, I would guess. I accept premeditation as a factor in deciding levels of punishment for crime, if that is what you mean. So frame of mind can be considered in deciding on punishment.
However, if I beat up a gay man in order to steal his wallet, is this worse than beating up a straight man in order to steal his wallet? Is this what you are asking?
I hope this isn’t going to turn into an abortion thread. I try to stay out of them; those really never go anywhere.
Under the Tenth Amendment, I think that whatever decisions need to be made by the government on the topic of abortion should be made at the lowest practical level. Since the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the federal government’s right to regulate abortion, that decision devolves onto the state governments. So as far as I can tell, the Supreme Court has/had no right to be overruling Utah’s laws on abortion (or New York’s, for that matter).
I am not sure where you are headed with this. Are you trying to figure out how strict a constructionist I am, or are you just checking if I am pro-life or pro-choice?
Congratulations, you have rekindled my interest in the thread. What are you up to?
Regards,
Shodan
Their take on a related case is at http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/scotus.religion.ap/index.html and has to do with a religious group being denied the opportunity to use the school building for after-hours, non-coercive group meetings apparently similar to Mr. Ashcroft’s group.
This goes to my point about other types of groups meeting in public buildings without a second thought, but religious ones undergoing special scrutiny.
Seriously, if Ashcroft and his friends say to me, “You Jews killed Christ,” then they have used religion as a weapon against me. If they read the New Testament in the privacy of an office, then they haven’t.