Street Preacher Freed
One of my ongoing blog projects is to document the work that the ACLU does on religious freedom and free speech issues on behalf of Christian organizations and individuals. I’ve documented dozens of such cases, and there are hundreds more that I haven’t yet detailed. Contrary to the sometimes insanely-overheated rhetoric of the anti-ACLU crowd (like Bill O’Reilly and the Worldnutdaily openly calling them “terrorists” out to “destroy Christianity”), the ACLU does a great deal of work to secure religious freedom and free speech for Christians and other religious groups and individuals.
One of the most astonishing examples of how the religious right flat out lies about the ACLU can be found in this piece by Jerry Falwell. In discussing a Massachusetts case where 7 students were punished for handing out candy canes with bible verses attached to them at Christmas time, Falwell writes:
The fact is, students have the right to free speech in the form of verbal or written expression during non-instructional class time. And yes, students have just as much right to speak on religious topics as they do on secular topics – no matter what the ACLU might propagate.
Yeah, no matter what the ACLU might say. But, uh, what did the ACLU say on this case? In fact, what did they do in this case? They were the group who defended those students. They wrote a letter to the school administration on behalf of the students and threatened a lawsuit and the administration backed down and reversed their policy. And when a Christian legal group convinced the families of the students to go ahead with the lawsuit anyway in order to get an injunction preventing the school from ever doing it again, the ACLU filed a brief in their favor.
And this is not the only time this sort of lie has been told, I might add. After the American Center for Law and Justice won the Lamb’s Chapel case in the Supreme Court, both Pat Robertson and Jay Sekulow went on the 700 Club and declared it a “victory over the ACLU”. Except that the ACLU was on their side in the Lamb’s Chapel case and had filed an amicus brief on their behalf. It is precisely these kinds of lies and distortions that prompted me to begin that project.
Anyway, a couple months ago I posted an item about the ACLU defending street preachers around the country I got a comment from the wife of Shawn Miller, a preacher in New Mexico who had been arrested and was being defended by the ACLU. He had spent 109 days in jail after being arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The sum total of that resisting amounted to him informing the officer that he had a constitutional right to preach. He was on his knees at the time. Mrs. Miller was kind enough to stop by a couple more times and update us on what was going on with the case.
Last week she told us that his trial date had been set for this week. And yesterday she stopped by to tell us that the prosecutor had issued a “nolle prosequi” in the case and dropped the charges. She posted an email from the ACLU attorney working on the case. He is now going to try and get the arrest expunged from Mr. Miller’s records so it doesn’t haunt him in the future. A victory for free speech and freedom of religion, to be sure. And brought to us by that evil group who supposedly hates Christians and wants to wipe out all religion.
18 Responses to “Street Preacher Freed”
Lies from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? I’m shocked, *shocked* I tell you.
I think it’s a stretch to say that the “religious right” intentionally lies about the ACLU. It is at least somewhat careless for Robertson or Falwell to claim victory over the ACLU when the ACLU was actually on their side in a particular case.
However, the ACLU has a peculiar, almost idiosyncratic record of picking the cases in which they’ll support the religious people and the cases in which they’ll oppose them. And in the most heavily-publicized cases, they almost always oppose them–even when the activity that supposedly violates the Establishment Clause is entirely innocuous. This is a phenomenon that Zach Wendling termed “The Offensive Pursuit of Purity.”
On second thought, perhaps the ACLU’s rubric is not so difficult to discern. They take an extreme reading of the Establishment Clause whereby there must be no interaction whatsoever between religion and government. So they do things like fight the county of Los Angeles over a small cross in its official seal (which is there in a historical context, and most people probably never noticed until the ACLU filed suit).
So while I’m grateful that the ACLU takes up cases where free exercise is clearly being infringed, in my opinion they deserve all the criticism they get from the right for promoting their extreme view of the Establishment Clause.
Eric Seymour wrote:
No, that’s not carelessness. It’s a lie. Jay Sekulow was the lead counsel in the Lamb’s Chapel case. Do you really think that he was unaware of the amicus briefs filed on their behalf? He knew damn well that the ACLU was on their side in that case. An honest man would have said, “We often battle against the ACLU, but in this case they were on our side and I thank them for their help.” But that would interfere with the demonization that is so valuable to their fundraising efforts.
Bingo. You just nailed the distinction that the Falwells and the Robertsons of the world pretend does not exist. There is nothing idiosyncratic about their record. They are opposed in the extreme to any whiff of government endorsement. And I agree that sometimes they go too far in that direction. The LA county seal case in particular was ridiculous, as is the ongoing case of the cross in the Mojave desert. But the fact is that those cases involve the establishment clause, not the free exercise clause, and on free exercise cases the ACLU is consistently on the same side as the various Christian legal groups. But have you ever heard that said by anyone in those organizations? Of course not.
I can show you probably hundreds of quotes from these folks claiming that the ACLU’s sole purpose is to destroy Christianity and “eliminate religion from the public square” or some such nonsense. Never do they point to the distinction you just pointed to, that if it involves individual free expression rather than government endorsement, they consistently defend the rights of Christians. It’s that sort of rhetoric that is absolutely dishonest.
They deserve honest criticism of some of their establishment clause work, I agree (though I’m sure we would disagree on some of the cases). But the kind of ridiculously inflated rhetoric you hear from the right – that the ACLU is a “terrorist group” of “communists” out to “destroy America” and “destroy the rights of Christians” or “wipe Christianity off the face of the earth” – is either dishonest or delusional. Take your pick.
Jay Sekulow was the lead counsel in the Lamb’s Chapel case. Do you really think that he was unaware of the amicus briefs filed on their behalf?
It’s not clear from your post who declared “victory over the ACLU.” You attribute that to “both Pat Robertson and Jay Sekulow.” If it was Robertson–the host of the 700 Club–who brought up that angle, it’s understandable that Sekulow might have been hesitant to say “well, uh, Pat, actually the ACLU filed a brief on our behalf in this case.”
Likewise, in your example of “how the religious right flat out lies about the ACLU,” how do you know that Falwell knew that the ACLU was defending the students in the case?
The ACLU is the boogeyman of the right, just as the left has its own boogeymen (Halliburton, James Dobson, et al). The reality of the situation easily gets lost, but I think it’s overdramatic to accuse either side of intentional dishonesty unless you have solid proof.
Eric Seymour wrote:
They both did. And Robertson is not just the host of the 700 Club, he was the founder of the ACLJ and this was their first shot at the big time with a Supreme Court case. Robertson had to know it too. But on the air, they both agreed that this was a huge victory over the ACLU. And that was followed by an appeal to send them money so they can win more of these battles against that evil ACLU. It was a lie, plain and simple.
Because that’s the most reasonable interpretation of the facts. He’s on the board of the group that was representing the students in their lawsuit and he’s always referring to his “good friend Matt Staver”, the lead counsel. Surely somewhere in the conversation about that case it had to come up that there was one very unique feature of the case – that the ACLU had already gotten the policy reversed but they were filing suit anyway. That’s highly unusual. Now, it’s possible that Falwell didn’t know that, but given the ACLU’s long history of defending the rights of Christian students in a wide range of cases – wearing religious clothing, singing Christian songs in talent shows, handing out literature, etc – the only way he could not know it is if he didn’t care. Bear in mind that here again you have a guy who has used the ACLU as a convenient boogeyman to raise money for his various political organizations, yet he has consistently misrepresented their position. If he doesn’t know what their position is on student’s religious rights, then he is being, at the very least, intellectually dishonest for making emphatic declarations about a subject he hasn’t bothered to research. That’s the most charitable possible interpretation. And given that the ACLU has defended Falwell himself in court – not once, but twice – you’d think he’d be a bit more interested in their real positions rather than the ones he and his ilk invents for them.
Of course the left has its boogeymen, though I don’t think either of the ones you named are the best examples. I’ll give you better ones. How about “neo-cons”? Michael Moore’s entire career is devoted to exactly the sort of manipulative propaganda that I am objecting to here. And yes, he lies while doing it. Just like Falwell, Robertson, and the rest of the gang on the right do. Having the lead counsel go on national television and declare a case to be a great victory over a group that filed a brief on their side in the case is as much solid proof as one could ever hope for. I think you’re confusing “you need solid proof” with “you need to disprove every hypothetical rationalization or excuse I can come up with.”
They both did….And that was followed by an appeal to send them money so they can win more of these battles against that evil ACLU.
Interesting. I’ve seen a few episodes of the 700 Club, and I don’t ever recall them appealing for donations in the middle of a show. Do you have a transcript for that show?
He’s on the board of the group that was representing the students in their lawsuit and he’s always referring to his “good friend Matt Staver”, the lead counsel.
Frankly, I don’t think that’s strong enough evidence to back up your claim of an “astonishing example” of the “religious right flat out lying” about the ACLU. I think it’s far more likely that they see so much about the ACLU to object to, they simply don’t pay attention to the few cases where the ACLU gets it right.
The problem with your post, actually, is that you’re committing the same sort of error you accuse Falwell, Robertson, and Sekulow of. Because you dislike them so much, you assume everything they do comes from dark, sinister motives. Rarely is this the case in the real world. Michael Moore really is a propagandist–his tricks and deceptions have been well documented–it’s the central purpose of his career and he makes good money at it. However, there are plenty of other liberal pundits I disagree with as much as you disagree with Falwell et al, but I do not think they are lying scumbags. They are advocating for a cause and obviously they spin things and sometimes they get their facts wrong, but in general they’re not charlatans.
Has there been a comment removed from this thread from Ed, which responds to the assertion that Falwell and Robertson are not liars?
Yes, I’m quite curious as well. I didn’t delete my own comment. Who did?
I deleted the comment because, in my opinion, it crossed the line from discussing arguments into making personal attacks. According to the ITA terms of use…
9. Comments on the blog must be related the posts offered or to the issues presented in the subsequent conversation(s), not at individuals. Ad homimem attacks (as determined by the operator), comments providing a fake e-mail address, comments pointing to unauthorized commercial sites or products (spam), or any comment deemed unwanted by any author may result in any of the following actions:
A. Removal of the offending comment(s).
Eric Seymour wrote:
Let me see if I have this straight…the same person who a few months ago called me a “tendentious jerk” (link) in a comment in what had up to that point been a pointed but civilized disagreement is now deleting my comments which contained no name calling whatsoever, and without any discussion among the contributors? Eric, I suggest that you just admit you were wrong on this one and apologize. You have no case whatsoever and you’re going to make yourself look very, very foolish attempting to defend this. The hypocrisy is already glaring; don’t compound it by trying to defend the indefensible. And don’t ever delete my comments again. You have neither the right nor the authority, as I understand you’ve already been told in private.
For the record, I’m going to reconstruct as best I can the comment that was deleted.
I’ve seen them do this regularly. In fact, they have several times a year when they turn the show into a telethon of nothing but begging for money. But no, I do not have a transcript of it, the show was over a decade ago. But I wrote about it at the time (I was writing a monthly column for a small independent magazine at the time) and I used to have a videotape of it. I used direct quotes in that article and they are as accurate today as they were then.
This is not a case of the ACLU being generally against free exercise of religion but taking a few isolated cases here and there; it’s a case of the ACLU taking a very strong stand one way on establishment clause cases (including sometimes going too far, we both agree), but taking a very strong and consistent stand the other way in free exercise cases. I’ve personally documented dozens of cases on my blog, and there are hundreds more, at least, that could be documented. There is one and only one reason why you never hear this from the Falwells and Robertsons of the world – it’s inconvenient for them. So they pretend – that means “lie” – and claim that the ACLU wants to “destroy Christianity” or “wipe religion off the face of the earth” and ignore the huge track record of the ACLU defending the free speech and free exercise rights of Christians. It’s all the more appalling for Falwell because the ACLU has defended his rights in this regard, not once but twice. But if they told the truth, it wouldn’t scare the sheep quite so much and the money wouldn’t flow as easily.
I think you have it backwards. The primary difference here between you and me is that I don’t try and rationalize away the deceit of people who are otherwise on my side of an issue. Michael Moore hammers Bush, and so do I quite often, but the fact that we agree on some things doesn’t make me excuse away his lies and his manipulation. But because Falwell and Robertson are Christian conservatives, you demand absolute, incontrovertible proof of any accusations made of them and even when that standard is met, you still rationalize it away.
The fact is that Falwell and Robertson have been proven liars over and over and over again. I’ve documented this in considerable detail. Falwell has gone on TV repeatedly and lied about never losing his tax exempt status, even after having the letter he himself wrote admitting to having lost it shown on national television and on the web. Robertson has denied saying things that he said on videotape for crying out loud, and then he’s even lied about lying (all of that documented here). I’m sure you’ll come up with some technicality or fanciful hypothetical to explain those things away as well, but the facts remain facts.
And, I would add, the fact that instead of responding to the substance of my argument you chose to delete it without saying a word, hoping it would just disappear and no one would notice, makes the argument above considerably stronger.
Ed,
For the record, I called you a “tendentious jerk” a few months back after you mis-paraphrased me several times in the course of a debate and persisted in those errors after I corrected you, and more than once as I recall. I don’t think there’s anything civil about doing that.
You softened up your personal attacks on me a little in your attempt at recreating your original comment. Here is what I was objecting to (I copied it down before I deleted it):
Ed wrote:
Here’s the difference between you and me, Eric. I agree that Michael Moore is a propagandist and a liar. The fact that he is against Bush
and I’m against Bush too doesn’t make me excuse his lies away. But because Robertson is a Christian and a conservative and therefore on
your side, you rationalize away his lies.
Me: In fact, I wasn’t rationalizing away anyone’s lies. I was pointing out that there is a big difference between being getting your facts wrong (even doing so carelessly or because you have an agenda) and being a liar. I felt that you had not provided sufficient evidence in your post to justify the strong accusations you were leveling at Roberston et al and, by association, the entire “religious right” (which by many people’s definintion would include multiple current and former ITA contributors).
Now, the following section I had no problem with:
Ed wrote:
I guarantee you that I can
document (and already have documented) both Robertson and Falwell as
liars to the same degree of certainty that Moore has been documented
to be one. Go here
and see evidence of several more lies told by both Robertson and
Falwell. The documentation of their lies is every bit as solid as the
documentation for Moore’s lies. They’ve both been caught not only
lying, but lying about their lying, claiming not to have said
something that can be documented with video or letters with their
signature on it.
Me: But then here you go personal again:
Ed wrote:
I’m sure you’ll come up with some fanciful way to rationalize those away as well, because you’re too blinded by trying to defend those who are on your side to look at it objectively.
Objective, rational people object to lies told by their side as well as by the other side.
Me: For some reason, you’re accusing me of tolerating lies told by conservatives but not liberals. However in the comment you were responding to, I explicitly explained that I also give the same benefit of the doubt to liberals who get their facts wrong–that they have no intent to deceive, but are advocating for a cause. (Michael Moore being an exception because his films make his intent to deceive quite obvious by their creative editing, and he has made propaganda his sole career.)
(I apologize for the formatting errors in the cut-and-pasted sections above.)
I accuse you of tolerating the lies of conservatives because that’s what you’re doing. But even if I’m wrong, it’s no different than you accusing me of engaging in demonization while criticizing others for demonizing. Neither are personal attacks, both are fair arguments to make and fair opinions to hold. And now you excuse away your own name-calling and try to justify it, while also excusing away why you deleted a message that didn’t contain any name-calling at all because you thought it was a personal attack. Are you trying to set a world record for how many different ways you can be hypocritical in one situation?
Eric,
Ed is right about your unfailing defense of conservative Christians no matter what. I know that I can’t think of any exceptions.
I see nothing good that can come out of continuing this conversation. Rather than continue to defend myself against Ed’s accusations, I’ll leave it to the readers to decide.
In response to Jim, though, I’ll say this… I lost most of whatever respect I had for Robertson and Falwell when they declared 9/11 was the judgement of God against America. (Well, actually Falwell said God had lifted a “shield of protection” from over America, but I digress.) I believe have mentioned that on this blog before.
Nevertheless, as much as I disagree with them, I cannot countenance character assassination on them, especially when it is accompanied with guilt-by-association by using lumping terms like “religious right.” Robertson and Falwell are, like most people, good men who have flaws.
P.S. If you want to see an example where I did not defend a “conservative Christian” but actually agreed with Ed’s criticisms (though, again, I objected to broad-brushing) go here.
Eric Seymour wrote:
What the readers will see, of course, is that you didn’t defend yourself at all you just attempted censorship. When you accused me of engaging in unjustified character assassination on Falwell and Robertson, I defended myself by proving you wrong. I provided a link to a long and detailed examination of their recent history of lies, with direct quotes and links to things they’ve written. They have lied frequently and I’ve proven it beyond any reasonable doubt. Your response was not to dispute the substance of what I’d written but to claim – quite hypocritically – that I was engaging in personal attacks and delete the whole comment.
You still haven’t admitted to being wrong for doing so despite having had it shown that A) my accusation against you that you excuse away the lies of your side is no more a “personal attack” than your accusation against me that I’m engaging in unjustified character assassination and B) that you’ve engaged in far worse personal attacks in comments before than what you wrongly claim was “crossing the line” here. You haven’t attempted to deny those things because, frankly, you can’t. They are true and the truth has a nasty way of resisting our rationalizations. Instead, you just decide to delete the comment and then whitewash away the hypocrisy and absurdity of your actions. That much is crystal clear in this situation. Have you noticed that no one has come to your defense here? That might give you a clue.
You’ve not only rationalized away the behavior of others, you’ve rationalized away your own bad behavior. And now, since you can’t possibly answer these arguments rationally and you can’t bear to just admit that you were wrong, you’ll withdraw and pretend to be above the fray. It’s a pretty sad performance all the way around.
As you could probably imagine, my life has been complete chaos since April. If it had not been for the ACLU, I would still be in jail. My public defender, Steve McIlwain, was convinced that I was incompetent to stand trial and was forcing me to take a psychiatric evaluation. The judge even revoked my ability to get bond because of this (the bond was originally set at $3,000 cash only).
You may contact George Bach at gbach@aclu-nm.org. He was the only one willing to fight for my freedom. The contract I signed with him was solely for the purpose of defending me, not for the purpose of filing a civil suit later. He conferred with the Steve Crampton and Mike DePrimo of the AFA in Tupelo, MS. It was decided that since George was already in New Mexico that he should represent me there. If you want to contact the AFA, their email is clp@afa.net. I contacted the AFA yesterday and they informed me that they have lost an attorney, and due to their heavy case load, they are unable to proceed with a lawsuit on my behalf as originally planned.
I am seeking damages from the county and the right to not be publicly humiliated for peaceably being on a street corner. I believe my constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of religion, and right to assemble were violated and therefore, I was falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned for 109 days. I also believe that the bail was excessive by demanding it all in cash. I believe that my public defender never represented me and my interests.
We left New Mexico on September 3. We passed through Louisiana and came to Mississippi right after Hurricane Katrina to stay with my wife’s grandparents. They were without power for almost three weeks, there was no phone service, and there were no chances of getting a job there, and since we have no car, I called my mom to come and get us and we went to stay with her in Pensacola, FL. In Florida, background checks are done by every employer prior to employment. I am a commercial driver and I was offered several jobs but was turned down due to the companies’ policies after my background check showed a pending court case. I was unable to even a get a job at a grocery store. Needless to say, I was completely devastated. My mom was expecting us to be able to start over by buying a car and buying a home, but that was not possible because of the background checks. So, after a month of beating my head against the wall, we came back to Mississippi to find work here. On Monday October 17, George Bach emailed me stating that the D.A. had dropped all the charges. That same day I had interviewed at Bolton Tours. I start working for them next week.
I still have several unanswered questions:
(1) Why did this happen in the first place? We had been at this parking lot every Sunday morning for three months. This is a small town. Police would often pass by. Every person in the town knew what we were doing. We were there without incident. We never caused a scene. We were never screaming and hollering, nor were we bothering anyone.
(2) Why did Officer Smart, Officer Wilson, and an animal control officer come and observe us for 15-20 minutes and then leave?
(3) Why did Officer Smart come back?
(4) Why did Officer Smart say I was pointing and yelling at cars and why did Captain Berry say I was standing in the median when there is no median at that location? Officer Smart said that I was “in the area” when he arrived. I was in the same exact spot I had been when he was there earlier and I was in the same exact spot that I had always been at for the previous three months: about 15 ft. from the sidewalk in the parking lot of an abandoned gas station. I was standing facing my wife and two children who were seated in folding chairs.
(5) Why was my public defender accusing me of being incompetent and forcing me to take a psychiatric evaluation? I went to see the psychiatrist Dr. Fink on June 7 and he advised me that I had the right not to take the test, so I said, “Then I don’t want to take the test.” My public defender, Steve McIlwain, was furious with me because I just wouldn’t go along and take the test (my public defender did not even talk to me in person or by phone until July 8, a full month after I had refused to take the test. Prior to that time, the only contact we ever had with him was when he would finally answer my wife’s telephone calls to him). The AFA has a hand-written note from me that I would like for you to obtain that will verify the meeting I had with my public defender that day.
This is America. How could this have happened here? If you have any further questions, please let me know. Please help me.
Shawn Miller
331 Cook Rd.
Moselle, MS 39459
(601) 544-3968
sfmtlmnm@yahoo.com