Does the ACLU have nothing better to do?

[mastag]

http://www.wltx.com/sports/story.aspx?storyid=56119

The American Civil Liberties Union has accused Clemson head football coach Tommy Bowden of abusing his authority by imposing his religious beliefs on his players, and it has asked the university to discontinue the coach's practice of strongly recommending players to participate in an annual team visit to a local church.

The university on Wednesday denied the ACLU's claim that Bowden, who is a state employee in a supervisory position, has violated the players' constitutional rights of separation of church and state.

The coach used publicly owned team buses to transport the team to the church this past August but will no longer be allowed to do so, school spokeswoman Cathy Sams said. "From our standpoint, this has been resolved for several months."

Neil Caesar, vice president of the South Carolina chapter of the ACLU, said the organization plans to press the issue. "The ball's in our court," Caesar said. "We just need to figure out what our response is going to be."

University president James Barker was out of town today and wasn�t available to comment, Sams said. Bowden was out of town and unavailable for comment, Clemson sports information director Tim Bourret said.

The ACLU filed a complaint with the university on Aug. 31. The complaint refers to comments Bowden made in The Greenville News in May in which the coach describes how he annually holds a "church day" for everyone on the roster and how one player's mother asked her son to be excused from the trip.

Bowden, who frequently refers to his Christian faith publicly, said in The News that the player's absence was "OK" and that "there's no intent to make anyone feel uncomfortable or awkward."

Caesar said that Bowden "has abused his authority as Clemson University's head football coach by imposing his strong personal religious beliefs upon student-athletes under his charge" and that the coach has created a situation wherein a player must "opt-out" of something that is being billed as voluntary, bringing undue attention to that player's "apostasy."

Caesar questioned whether it would be acceptable if a Jewish or Muslim coach created an annual visit to a temple or mosque that players had to request to be excused from.

In a July letter to players' parents, Bowden expresses his Christian faith and his belief that "a young man's spiritual growth should be addressed, but done so in a very personal and private way."

The coach explains in the letter that "having said this, I strongly recommend attendance at a local church once per year as a team." In the letter, he instructs parents to call him if "this creates a concern for either you or your son."

In Clemson's Sept. 21 response to the ACLU�s request to discontinue the church visit, university general counsel Clayton Steadman said "we decline to take this action and do not believe it is warranted."

The response cites Bowden's letter to parents and states that "the voluntary nature of the event is made very clear to students and their parents." The university's response points out that players have declined to participate in the past and none have been penalized.

The university didn't receive any complaints it was aware of from players or parents, Sams said today.

Steve Lowe, president of the ACLU�s Piedmont chapter, said today that the ACLU didn�t receive any complaints from players or parents but looked into the issue after ACLU board members raised concerns.

Caesar said on Wednesday that while the university "does seem to be taking this seriously," the ACLU still believes that Bowden is violating players' rights.

"A person who doesn't want to do it has to actively take steps to opt out of it," Caesar said. "It�s not voluntary. It's something you have to get out of."

He said that "Coach Bowden or anybody is allowed to be religious or express their religious preferences. How and when it might be done with student-athletes is an area that is kind of subtle and kind of nuanced and needs to be approached from that perspective."

Maybe it's because i'm a Clemson fan...

 

[CptStern]

on risk of another infraction for pointing out the obvious, Nemesis, you're an idiot

they defended their constitutional rights, nothing more. Suggesting they support their way of life is both incorrect and points to someone with an agenda crying wolf

..I guess by your logic you'd say ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein is a self hating jew because his organisation supports CAIR

"Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms." - ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein

but that wont stop you from being an armchair kneejerk reactionary

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

My catholic school trip stopped by a Jewish church, a Muslim church, and a Presbyterian church on our trip to West Point. OMG, CALL TEH LAIRARS AT ACLU, MAH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTZ HAVE BEEN ROBBED!

 

[mastag]

Stern, please don't get my thread closed.

 

[Nemesis6]

Back to the topic - I really don't see the problem, that he chooses to advice them to do this is his choice, and it's their choice to ignore him as he not all that subtly pointed out. The trip to the church might even be justified if it creates a stronger bond between the players, just like excursions of all kinds in schools.

I have no way of knowing his motives, but it seems harmless and if it helps him take a personal interest in his players, well, then, yeah.

 

[mastag]

I met Tommy Bowden at an autograph signing, very nice guy, well spoken, seems very down to earth. His players seem to like him a lot too. Seems like the ACLU is just offended themselves and are representing nobody but themselves.

I just wish he could get us to the ACC championship game...but that's another issue entirely

 

[Sulkdodds]

I repeat: ****. Off. Let it go.

Users are not obligated to 'let it go' when other users say stupid things.

Anyway: no, I guess it is evident that the ACLU has "nothing better" to do.

 

[Absinthe]

This seems really trivial.

 

[mastag]

Users are not obligated to 'let it go' when other users say stupid things.

Nemesis, you're an idiot

:|


It just seems like the ACLU is doing this for no real reason. None of the players seem to have any problems with it.

 

[Nemesis6]

The ACLU, just like the U.N, has a reputation to consider, and if they're not in the spotlight, just the U.N, they lose that. This is one example of when such organizations become desperate. It's really nothing more than such. That they do so in this way is sad, but not far from them as an organization because they have a history of things like this.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Okay, now, this is something the ACLU should go after.

 

[Nemesis6]

Okay, now, this is something the ACLU should go after.

What? Preferential censorship on forums?

 

[CptStern]

The ACLU, just like the U.N, has a reputation to consider,

why would you compare it to the UN? why not Ford or Proctor and Gamble, or Nabisco, or SOny or IBM or ESSO or the stupid company that makes suppositories? EVERY single entity has it's reputation to consider ..what exactly is your point here?

and if they're not in the spotlight, just the U.N, they lose that.

by going after something in their own jurisdiction? it was the south carolina chapter, that's what they do ..once again you overgeneralise by impling this is the aclu as a whole rather than a regional chapter going after something within their alotted territories ..but that would mean you actually took the time to read the article, which is worse because you went ahead with your gross overgeneralisation despite the facts

This is one example of when such organizations become desperate. It's really nothing more than such. That they do so in this way is sad, but not far from them as an organization because they have a history of things like this.

:upstare: you're chicken little "the sky is falling the sky is falling" only less astute and far more single minded ..it really is enjoyable to completely rip the wind from your sails on a continual basis, exposing you for the charlatan you really are

 

[Nemesis6]

why would you compare it to the UN? why not Ford or Proctor and Gamble, or Nabisco, or SOny or IBM or ESSO or the stupid company that makes suppositories? EVERY single entity has it's reputation to consider ..what exactly is your point here?

My point with comparing it to the U.N is that the U.N does similar things to get attention, but compared to the U.N, they're pretty harmless as far as publicity stunts go.

by going after something in their own jurisdiction? it was the south carolina chapter, that's what they do ..once again you overgeneralise by impling this is the aclu as a whole rather than a regional chapter going after something within their alotted territories ..but that would mean you actually took the time to read the article, which is worse because you went ahead with your gross overgeneralisation despite the facts

Don't get it too tangled up there - The local chapters are still supposed to represent the organisation. If the ACLU has distanced itself from these actions, it's news to me. And still, perhaps this one time they should just have just shut their yabs and looked important.

:upstare: you're chicken little "the sky is falling the sky is falling" only less astute and far more single minded ..it really is enjoyable to completely rip the wind from your sails on a continual basis, exposing you for the charlatan you really are

You can be a bitch about it all you want, there are a lot of people who don't like this organisation, mostly because of its support of Nambla... Oh, I'm sorry, they don't "support" it, they "support" the right of the biggest public pedophile group in America to EXIST.
Yeah, but you have to realize that to many people, this distinction is very negligible considering who NAMBLA(Note the absence of the combined M and B unlike their logo) are - Pedophiles trying to legalize their behavior.

 

[99.vikram]

NAMBLA

I was going to call you homophobic but then I checked up on the acronym, WTF. :|

 

[repiV]

You can be a bitch about it all you want, there are a lot of people who don't this organisation, mostly because of its support of Nambla... Oh, I'm sorry, they don't "support" it, they "support" the right of the biggest public pedophile group in America to EXIST.
Yeah, but you have to realize that to many people, this distinction is very negligible considering who NAMBLA(Note the absence of the combined M and B unlike their logo) are - Pedophiles trying to legalize their behavior.

Why shouldn't NAMBLA be allowed to exist?
A truly free society makes no distinction between good free speech and bad free speech. You can't denounce hate crimes legislation and then say that NAMBLA should be banned. It's not about whether they're sick bastards or not.

Now just don't get me started on the concept of hate crimes...

 

[CptStern]

My point with comparing it to the U.N is that the U.N does similar things to get attention, but compared to the U.N, they're pretty harmless as far as publicity stunts go.

:upstare: even after I explain why your point was a non point you dont get it

Don't get it too tangled up there - The local chapters are still supposed to represent the organisation. If the ACLU has distanced itself from these actions, it's news to me. And still, perhaps this one time they should just have just shut their yabs and looked important.

again you just fill in space with useless words ..that's their job, like it or not they are there to defend the constitution and individual rights, if they think there are grounds for an investigation that's THEIR progative

You can be a bitch about it all you want, there are a lot of people who don't like this organisation, mostly because of its support of Nambla... Oh, I'm sorry, they don't "support" it, they "support" the right of the biggest public pedophile group in America to EXIST.

again more alramist pap ..even after I PROVED that their involvement was simply defending their free speech rights you inaccurately protray them as sympathetic to their cause ...

"Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms." - ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein

http://halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2466789&postcount=2

why dont you accuse John Reinstein of being a self-hating jew because his organisation supports CAIR?

Yeah, but you have to realize that to many people, this distinction is very negligible considering who NAMBLA(Note the absence of the combined M and B unlike their logo) are - Pedophiles trying to legalize their behavior.

the burden of proof lies with you ..prove without a shadow of a doubt that the ACLU wants to help them legalize their behaviour ..I'll wait

 

[K e r b e r o s]

What? Preferential censorship on forums?

I read that the coach was making players attend church before a game -- not so good in my playbook.

 

[Nemesis6]

Yeah, and it's my prerogative to believe they're idiots for doing things like this, along with calling security guards who check bags "terrorists". In both cases, abuse of power. Now, please, get it through head - I don't portray them as symapthetic to NAMBLA. You wanna paint me that way because it makes it easier for you to argue. Why don't I criticize John Reinstein because he supporst CAIR? If his organisation supports CAIR, then they're idiots, or at best, willfully ignorant about the history and inherent structure of CAIR. By the way, stop repeating yourself. You already used that sentence about self-hating Jew before. Once again you glargle - I never said they wanted to help them legalize it, only that this was the goal of NAMBLA. And the only thing I stated was that I have an principle problem with them associating with Nambla, but it is by no means a good example of what can be held against them... even though that is what a lot of people hold against them. There are a lot of other cases that can make a much better case than them simply standing up for the rights of pedophiles. One such case: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007092

Another case, the one about Tariq Ramadan - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_on_re_us/aclu_lawsuit_2

Surely there is no reason for him to be barred from entering the country? Well there kind of is: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2043

The ACLU has a lot of good goals, but every once in a while, it screws up as it has done in the past, and once again, the past is a much better example to judge them if you want to do that.

Making a u-turn - Kerberos: If he's indeed making them go to this, then I support the ACLU's decision to go after him. But not if it ruins his career, etc. They have a lot of power, and -insert the old quote about absolute power here-.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

^Umm, there was a lot of spite in that comment. Not sure who it was directed towards.