Buffman

I just received an e-mail containing the following information from a gentleman whom I consider to be extremely well informed about C-SS issues. He is not an anti-religionist. He is simply a pro-C-S separationist.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The book is quite sobering.

TRUMPING RELIGION, The New Christian Right, the Free Speech Clause, and the Courts, by Steven P. Brown, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0380, (2002)

www.uapress.ua.edu

From the flyleaf
Trumping Religion provides a detailed analysis of the five major
public-interest law firms that have litigated religion cases in the federal courts between 1980 and 2000. During the past two decades, Steven Brown argues, these organizations have not only stepped up their efforts to participate in religion cases but also fundamentally changed the way religious expression is viewed by the law, appealing not to the free-exercise of-religion or establishment clauses of the Constitution but to the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Allied with several highly vocal evangelical ministries, such as those of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, the legal organizations that litigate for the New Christian Right argue that religious expression is a form of protected speech and thereby gain a greater latitude of interpretation in the courts. This strategy has been criticized by both liberals and conservatives as demeaning the concepts of belief and worship, yet it has been successful. The long-term agenda of the NCR as illuminated by this study is to shape church-state jurisprudence in a way that permits free
course for the Christian gospel. This result, they believe, would retard further secularization of the traditional American way of life.

Brown presents his research and conclusions from a balanced viewpoint. In filling a distinct void in the literature, this book will be of considerable interest to political scientists, legal scholars, law schools and seminaries, and anyone concerned with the intersection of religion and judicial politics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the back cover
This book is the first scholarly treatment of the strategies employed by the New Christian Right in litigating cases regarding religion using the free speech clause of the U.S. Constitution.

"Those who follow the political strategies of the New Christian Right know of its efforts to direct the executive affairs of the federal government by electing its own presidential candidate, and to direct legislative matters by electing its own congressional candidates. Thanks almost solely to Brown's fascinating study, observers will now know of the NCR's strategy to shape judicial decisions affecting religion in America through aggressive
litigation efforts carried out by a host of well-stocked public interest law firms. As Brown documents with an impressive marshalling of facts and figures, the strategy has proven more successful than NCR opponents or even the NCR itself could have envisioned."

-Derek H. Davis, Baylor University

===========================================
USSC cases from 1981 to 2002 that these tactics have been employed in some form of fashion

Widmar a Vincent 454 US 263 (1981) [Their tactics prevailed]
Larson v. Valente 456 US 228 (1982) [Their tactics prevailed]
Bob Jones University a US 461 US 574 (1983) [Their tactics lost]
Lynch a Donnelly 465 US 668 (1984) [Their tactics prevailed]
Witters a Washington Department of Services for the Blind 474 US 481 (1986) [Their tactics prevailed]
Goldman v. Weinberger 475 US 503 (1986) [Their tactics lost]
Bowen a Roy 476 US 693 (1986) [Their tactics lost]
Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools 477 US 619 (1986) [Their tactics lost]
Ansonia Board of Education a Philbrook 479 US 60 (1986) [Their tactics prevailed]
Hobbie a Unemployment Appeals Commiaion 480 US 136 (1987) [Their tactics prevailed]
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabasz 482 US 342 (1987) [Their tactics lost]
Edwaris a Aguillard 482 US 578 (1987) [Their tactics lost]
Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos 483 US 327 (1987) [their tactics prevailed]
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association 485 US 439 (1988) [Their tactics prevailed]
Bowen a Kendrick 487 US 589 (1988) [Their tactics prevailed]
Frazee v. Illinois Department of Employment Security 489 US 829 (1989) [Their tactics prevailed]
Jimmy Swaggart Ministries u Board of Equalization of California 493 US 378 (1990) [Their tactics lost]
Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergers 496 US 226 (1990) [Their tactics prevailed]
Lee a Weisman 505 US 577 (1992) [Their tactics lost]
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District 508 US 385 (1993) [Their tactice prevailed]
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hiakah 508 US 520 (1993) [Their tactics prevailed]
Zobrrst a Catalina Foothills School District 509 US 1 (1993) [Their tactics prevailed]
Board of Ed of Kryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet 512 US 687 (1994) [Their tactics lost]
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board a Pinette 515 US 753 (1995) [Their tactics prevailed]
Rosenberger a Rector and Visitors of the University of Vrginia 515 US 819 (1995) [Their tactics prevailed]
Agostini v. Felton 521 US 203 (1997) [Their tactics prevailed]
City of Boerne v. Flares 521 US 507 (1997) [Their tactics lost]
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe 530 US 290 (2000) [Their tactics lost]
Mitchell v. Helms 530 US 793 (2000) [Their tactics prevailed]
Simmons-Harris v. Zelman, 2002 [Their tactics prevailed]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

They have been having the same kinds of success in the Federal District courts and the Federal Courts of Appeals over the same time frame.

The legal groups that have been providing Counsel or Funding , been filing Amicus Briefs are: Alliance Defense Fund; American Center for Law and Justice; Christian Legal Society; Liberty Counsel; Rutherford Institute.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

They appear to have developed a strategy that appeals to the increasing numbers of conservative judges and justices that occupy the federal courts as the above information shows. It is no longer a matter of law, of history, it is pure political/religious philosophies

They definitely appear to be better funded, organized, effective and successful than groups such as the ACLU, AU SC&S, PFAW, FFRF.

Toto

The book is here:

http://www.uapress.ua.edu/authors/browntrump02.html

and instructions for ordering are on that site, or it can be ordered from Amazon (II gets a percentage) (where there seem to be some half price copies.)

{edited to add: The major part of this strategy is getting judges appointed who will buy the argument, like the former head of the Rutherford Institute.}

admice

Thanks for the info. Now I'm depressed. We have all these different, separate groups which take legal action for SCS; shouldn't we get them to consolidate their efforts? Can we? How? I know ACLU is too diverse, but what about the atheist organizations. I'm really frustrated they all compete with each other. (And not so naive that I don't know some of them formed their own organizations more to make a living than achieve success).

Any insights or encouragement appreciated.

Admice

Toto

The Alliance for Justice is the only attempt I know of to combine efforts, and their focus is on judicial nominations (which is the most important issue -- the religious right is trying to stack the judiciary with judges who will accept their arguments.
.

Buffman

Admice

I can certainly appreciate your frustrations. As I have stated in the past, there is much more to all this than the average American realizes. I have been tracking these developments for more than 20 years. Unfortunately about the only contributions I have been able to offer to help stem this modern crusade are:

1. Alert folks to the realities.
2. Seek to present the most accurate information I can find to help educate those willing to listen and learn.
3. Submit letters-to-the-editor, articles and commentaries citing the inaccuracies (propaganda) flooding the media and our political institutions.
4. Be a sincere gadfly in these forums.
5. Send corrective information message to any and all Web sites that are posting incorrect information. (I consider non-theist sites as the most important ones to correct. IMHO, they have a vital responsibility/obligation to get their information as accurate as possible before they can point an accusing finger at theists.

Now, although I do not wish to add to your frustration, I think it is important for you to gain as much knowledge about the scope (Big Picture) of this theist crusade (war against secularism) as possible. It is to that end, I recommend that you go to the URL below and link to all the groups listed on the left of the page in order to see just how extensive, well organized, professionally led, highly financed, and successful this crusade has been in just slightly over 20 years.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/movement.htm

PS: I have collected hundreds of URLs which help to expose just how expansive and insidious this brilliant theist campaign has been in manipulating the American psyche away from a pluralistic, secular, federal republic form of government. There is almost no area of American life, including these forums, that is not under professional attack by the forces of supernaturalism.

Dominus Paradoxum

We need to do everything we can to stop it. What we need to do is get organized. We're ten percent of the population. We can fight this if we want to.

Dominus Paradoxum

P.S. Does anyone know how I could become a political activist?

Toto

Start by joining a group of people who have like aims. Build up your skills in public speaking, personal interaction, etc.

Or do like some people, make a fortune and set up your own foundation to fund your cause.

Buffman

D.P.

Toto's recommendations are excellent. You might also wish to consider the following:

First you must get and know the facts as accurately as possible. For instance, you just claimed 10 %. Is that accurate? Is that the best way to express non-theists in this country? Please take a few minutes to look at and analyze the information at these first two URLs. I think you will discover that your information isn't as accurate as it could be...or as meaningful. If you add just the Atheists (.04%), Agnostics (.05%) and Nonreligious/Secular (13.2%) together, it gives us at least 14.1% of the population. That converts to approximately 29,432,000 Americans that would probably be inclined to support C-SS policies and resist laws favoring the religious erosion of the 1st Amendment historical interpretations of Freedom of Religion (Freedom from religion and the rights to the individual expressions of conscience without government intrusion or intimidation).

http://www.adherents.com/

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions

Second, you might discover some useful information at these additional URLs. However, always be critical of information that is not verifiable or that lacks original reference sources.

http://www.ifas.org/fw/9306/myths.html

http://www.ifas.org/fw/9606/barton.html

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/decon.html

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/t...stionnaire.htm

http://www.skeptictank.org/foundpk.htm

admice

Also, 2 easy political activism sites are:

True Majority and MoveOn. VoteSmart also has all kinds of info about legislators.

The Freedon from Religion foundation does CSS work as does the ACLU.

MAny atheism sites have newswires with email alerts. ASk if you need more.

admice