Tenn State Agency labels ACLU: "terrorist Organization"

[Alferd_Packer]

Why?

Because the ACLU sent a letter out to schools reminding them not to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday.

Quote:

“It is deeply disturbing that Tennessee’s fusion center is tracking First Amendment-protected activity,” said Hedy Weinberg, ACLU-Tennessee’s executive director. “Equating a group’s attempts to protect religious freedom in Tennessee with suspicious activity related to terrorism is outrageous. Religious freedom is a founding principle in our Constitution — not fodder for overzealous law enforcement.”

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/conten...ent-disturbing

[fuelair]

Tennessee has gone to heck since I left.........

[Checkmite]

Non story, misleading thread/article title, and the First Amendment restriction on the government prohibiting free speech does not make it illegal for them to take notes on letters sent to government offices.

[I Am The Scum]

If you're really in for a laugh, read the article for the spokesperson's lame excuses.

Just more evidence that both the so-called war on Christmas and so-called war on terror are monumental jokes.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

misleading thread/article title

How so?

Tenn State Agency labels ACLU: "terrorist Organization"
That is most certainly true. Not misleading.

ACLU calls anti-terrorism agency map placement 'disturbing'
That is most certainly true. Not misleading.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

and the First Amendment restriction on the government prohibiting free speech does not make it illegal for them to take notes on letters sent to government offices.

That sentence didn't make a whole lot of sense, but nothing I read in the article indicated that anyone is accusing others of doing something illegal.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

How so?

Tenn State Agency labels ACLU: "terrorist Organization"
That is most certainly true. Not misleading.

From the article:

Quote:

A state government anti-terrorism agency placed the Tennessee ACLU on a map of “terrorism events and other suspicious activity” for sending a letter warning public schools not to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday.

Quote:

On the Fusion Center’s website, the blinking map of Tennessee shows flashing icons. Rolling a computer’s cursor over the icons results in explanations popping up on the screen, none of which have anything to do with major terrorist plots. *The ACLU letter was highlighted under the icon for “suspicious activity.”

“ACLU cautions Tennessee schools about observing ‘one religious holiday,’” the website’s explanation reads.

Also among the map’s highlights: “McMinn County Teen Brings Gun to School,” and “Turkish National Salih Acarbulut Indicted in Chattanooga for Alleged $12 million Ponzi Scheme.”

At no point was the ACLU ever labeled a 'terrorist organization'. This one single act was described as 'suspicious activity', but the government is allowed to call anything it wants 'suspicious'.

[thaiboxerken]

Wow, you reallylike to stretch logic until it feels tortured don't you?

[Checkmite]

The article itself says in plain English that the letters were mentioned amongst a bunch of other stuff that is not terrorism-related. No spin, interpretation, or inference required.

[thaiboxerken]

So what does "suspicious activity" mean to you, Checkmite? When you're at the airport and the announcer comes on and says to report "suspicious activity" to the authorities, do you flag down TSA and report to them that you suspect the lady on the bench is tired? Or maybe you report that you think the person wandering around looks suspiciously hungry.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

So what does "suspicious activity" mean to you, Checkmite?

To me, "suspicious activity" means "something that isn't inherently illegal but may possibly signal or lead to something illegal". "Possibly" meaning "not guaranteed, may be nothing". I suspect law enforcement's definition is similar.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

To me, "suspicious activity" means "something that isn't inherently illegal but may possibly signal or lead to something illegal". "Possibly" meaning "not guaranteed, may be nothing". I suspect law enforcement's definition is similar.

Suspiciously hungry people could get so starved as to rob a bank. The ACLU is suspiciously against mixing religion with government as to ...what?

[Moss]

Did I miss something? Is actually reminding the schools of the spirit of the US constitution now a suspicious activity?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Moss

Did I miss something? Is actually reminding the schools of the spirit of the US constitution now a suspicious activity?

Yes, suspiciously protecting the first amendment. I guess that's reason enough to be placed on a watch-list along with terrorists, according to Checkmite.

[Checkmite]

Ignoring my point, which is that being labelled 'suspicious' doesn't mean anything. The State of Tennessee isn't going to be sending shadow ninja stalkers to watch the ACLU now. So what difference does it make?

If you walk into a department store with a large oversize coat on, chances are private security will label you 'suspicious' and watch your every move on camera until you leave. Does this interfere with your shopping experience in any way?

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

At no point was the ACLU ever labeled a 'terrorist organization'. This one single act was described as 'suspicious activity', but the government is allowed to call anything it wants 'suspicious'.

I'll concede that the thread title is not as spot-on as I initially surmised. However, the TN organization is there for the purpose of coordinating anti-terror activities. For them to focus on the activities of the ACLU shows that, at the least, they suspect that there is a possibility that the ACLU might be involved in terrorist activities. Such suspicion is not illegal. It is, however, absurd.

Of course, this only applies when one operates under the premise that these people are engaging in such suspicion under a fully professional capacity. I find it far more likely that somebody working there felt the need to let off a little political steam, cause the ACLU was trying to murder Jesus, or something.

In any case, this mess rightly deserves criticism.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Ignoring my point...

Ok. Done, since it makes no sense.

[Moss]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Ignoring my point, which is that being labelled 'suspicious' doesn't mean anything. The State of Tennessee isn't going to be sending shadow ninja stalkers to watch the ACLU now. So what difference does it make?

If you walk into a department store with a large oversize coat on, chances are private security will label you 'suspicious' and watch your every move on camera until you leave. Does this interfere with your shopping experience in any way?

Why is the label of "suspicious activity" then applied at all when no meaningful reaction follows? IMO it does sound like they are put on a watchlist and scrutinized more closely. For an activity that shouldn't be labeled suspicious at all.
Your analogy leads to the same conclusion. Being watched via CCTV does diminish my shopping experience. Because I hate generalized suspicion against customers.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would appear the negative publicity prompted the state agency to take the blinking spot down, or else I'm just having a hard time with their search engine.

http://tnfusion.globalincidentmap.com/home.php

The OP link says:

Quote:

A state government anti-terrorism agency placed the Tennessee ACLU on a map of “terrorism events and other suspicious activity”

which is slightly different from the thread title, "labels ACLU: "terrorist Organization", but still very disturbing to even consider the letter newsworthy as it relates to the intent of the map.

[Alareth]

And look at the Ignorati in the comments chomping at the bit to attack the ACLU.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Moss

Did I miss something? Is actually reminding the schools of the spirit of the US constitution now a suspicious activity?

The ACLU is using the state's power -- e.g., threats of lawsuits, in particular -- to make sure other people not Celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, which means not just "do not preach conversion to Christianity to a captive audience" but also "no Christmas carols in school" and "don't you dare have nativity scenes anywhere". This doesn't seem to me like "the spirit of the Constitution". In seems like mean-spirited oppression by vindictive people.

[WildCat]

This thread... is suspicious.

Reported.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by skeptic

the aclu is using the state's power -- e.g., threats of lawsuits, in particular -- to make sure other people schools not celebrate christmas as a religious holiday, which means not just "do not preach conversion to christianity to a captive audience" but also "no christmas carols in school" and "don't you dare have nativity scenes anywhere in government funded classrooms". This doesn't seem to me like violating "the spirit of the constitution". in It seems like mean-spirited oppression intimidation by vindictive people some yahoo in a tenn state agency.

ftfy

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The ACLU is using the state's power -- e.g., threats of lawsuits, in particular -- to make sure other people not Celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, which means not just "do not preach conversion to Christianity to a captive audience" but also "no Christmas carols in school" and "don't you dare have nativity scenes anywhere". This doesn't seem to me like "the spirit of the Constitution". In seems like mean-spirited oppression by vindictive people.

Are they trying to "make sure other people don't celebrate Christmas" or "make sure the government, which compels children by law to attend school, are not subjecting these children to religious activities, something the courts have addressed and ruled is not constitutional?"

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The ACLU is using the state's power -- e.g., threats of lawsuits, in particular -- to make sure other people not Celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, which means not just "do not preach conversion to Christianity to a captive audience" but also "no Christmas carols in school" and "don't you dare have nativity scenes anywhere". This doesn't seem to me like "the spirit of the Constitution". In seems like mean-spirited oppression by vindictive people.

While I personally don't mind schools doing Christmas stuff (it's become a secular holiday for so many), it's a Christian holiday and I understand why it's best just left out of school. Kids get to celebrate Christmas all they want from at least Thanksgiving until the end of December when they're out of school and there's no need at all for them to have additional celebration of it in their public school.

My nephews' elementary school had a little concert a couple weeks ago with zero mention of any holiday and it was cool. They sang songs from all over the world and recited information about the culture that originated each one. I thought it was much better than having them sing Jingle Bells and Deck the Halls because they were being exposed to music and information that they're not going to be [over]saturated with everywhere else during the holiday season.

Good schools and teachers can put to good use the time they would previously have wasted with useless Christmas nonsense and Christians should jump on board. If they're worried their kids don't appreciate Jesus enough, they can always drag the kids to more church services...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

The ACLU is using the state's power -- e.g., threats of lawsuits, in particular -- to make sure other people not Celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, which means not just "do not preach conversion to Christianity to a captive audience" but also "no Christmas carols in school" and "don't you dare have nativity scenes anywhere". This doesn't seem to me like "the spirit of the Constitution". In seems like mean-spirited oppression by vindictive people.

You obviously don't care about the feelings of children in public schools who don't follow the Christian religion. They're supposed to not mind someone else's religious celebration because you aren't bothered by it.

I also think you need to see what the practices are specifically in Tennessee before you generalize that there is no problem. My friends moved there and lasted a year. The dad in the family was a college professor. He said all staff meetings began with a Christian prayer despite the question of the legality of it. I don't know about Christianity in the lower grades but one should at least investigate before assuming there were no problems.

[Accidental Martyr]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Ignoring my point, which is that being labelled 'suspicious' doesn't mean anything. The State of Tennessee isn't going to be sending shadow ninja stalkers to watch the ACLU now. So what difference does it make?

If you walk into a department store with a large oversize coat on, chances are private security will label you 'suspicious' and watch your every move on camera until you leave. Does this interfere with your shopping experience in any way?

If it doesn't mean anything then why do it?

[clown]

I love it when state agencies accuse each other of "suspicious" (In this article meaning "likely to be followed by illegal") activities for doing their job. What's next? Accusing fire-fighters answering emergency for breaking and entering? Accusing policeman for carrying (concealed) firearms in public and behaviour likely to cause affray?

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

[Bob Blaylock]

I think there is truly no more bizarre creation of the political left than the idea that in order to uphold the First Amendment, it is necessary and appropriate to censor and suppress the expression of religious beliefs and heritage in certain contexts.

The purpose of the First Amendment is very specifically, explicitly, to protect the very rights that groups such as the ACLU are so determined to use it as an excuse to violate with impunity.

[BobTheDonkey]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

I think there is truly no more bizarre creation of the political left than the idea that in order to uphold the First Amendment, it is necessary and appropriate to censor and suppress the expression of religious beliefs and heritage in certain contexts.

The purpose of the First Amendment is very specifically, explicitly, to protect the very rights that groups such as the ACLU are so determined to use it as an excuse to violate with impunity.

Amazing how people will twist reality to fit their preconceived notions.

"Must. Attack. A. C. L. U. at. ALL. COSTS. But. that. means. supporting. schools. that. want. to. violate. separation. of. church. and. state. Arrgghhh"

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

While I personally don't mind schools doing Christmas stuff (it's become a secular holiday for so many), it's a Christian holiday and I understand why it's best just left out of school. Kids get to celebrate Christmas all they want from at least Thanksgiving until the end of December when they're out of school and there's no need at all for them to have additional celebration of it in their public school.

My nephews' elementary school had a little concert a couple weeks ago with zero mention of any holiday and it was cool. They sang songs from all over the world and recited information about the culture that originated each one. I thought it was much better than having them sing Jingle Bells and Deck the Halls because they were being exposed to music and information that they're not going to be [over]saturated with everywhere else during the holiday season.

Good schools and teachers can put to good use the time they would previously have wasted with useless Christmas nonsense and Christians should jump on board. If they're worried their kids don't appreciate Jesus enough, they can always drag the kids to more church services...

It's funny that you name two of the least religious 'Christmas*' songs I can think of. In school we used to sing only Christian songs at our 'Holiday' recital. When I pointed out that this might be a problem, the teacher said it wasn't, and had an administrator tell me it wasn't. Now thinking this was a bit of an over reaction to my mentioning that all the songs being obvious Christian ones, I looked up the New York state guild lines on unnecessary religious entanglement and it so happened that the exact example they used was singing only Christian religious songs at Christmas.

*I put Christmas in quotes because Jingle Bells was actually written about Thanksgiving.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

It's funny that you name two of the least religious 'Christmas*' songs I can think of.

I did that on purpose. I mean, it's obvious that Silent Night would be entirely inappropriate, right?

Quote:

In school we used to sing only Christian songs at our 'Holiday' recital.

I know. I grew up here in Portland, Oregon (urban, relatively hip, pretty left) and even in the mid 80s when I was coming up, there was Christmas all over the schools and we sang all the Christian Christmas hits when I was in the school choir.

Quote:

When I pointed out that this might be a problem, the teacher said it wasn't, and had an administrator tell me it wasn't. Now thinking this was a bit of an over reaction to my mentioning that all the songs being obvious Christian ones, I looked up the New York state guild lines on unnecessary religious entanglement and it so happened that the exact example they used was singing only Christian religious songs at Christmas.

"Unnecessary" is the perfect word. I'll never be able to understand the logic behind the anti-anti-Christmas-in-school opinions. Is celebrating religious holidays really how those folks want our public school system to be spending its time?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

I'll concede that the thread title is not as spot-on as I initially surmised. However, the TN organization is there for the purpose of coordinating anti-terror activities. For them to focus on the activities of the ACLU shows that, at the least, they suspect that there is a possibility that the ACLU might be involved in terrorist activities. Such suspicion is not illegal. It is, however, absurd.

Absurd, perhaps - given the facts as we're acquainted with them. Outrageous? Reprehensible? Not in the very least. Individuals and events are quite routinely classed as 'suspicious', and just as often absolved of suspicion, every single day as the machine of law enforcement clanks on. While I understand that someone might feel incensed or have hurt feelings to find out that one of their favorite organizations' events was considered suspicious at some point, it's not any cause for alarm if they're not throwing people in jail.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It makes little sense to draw conclusions about the ACLU's letter by how it has been represented by others without looking at the letter in more detail, and the reason it was sent.

Quote:

NASHVILLE – Responding to numerous complaints from families about religious holiday activities in Tennessee public schools, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee (ACLU-TN) sent a letter late yesterday to the 137 public school superintendents across the state. The letter reminded school officials that holiday celebrations focusing primarily on one religious holiday amount to a school's unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

So the letter was initiated after numerous complaints by parents with kids in the schools in question. Just because public schools are not allowed to promote one religion over another is not a guarantee this law will be adhered to, and in fact, there are numerous pressures on schools especially in the South and in the Bible belt to inject Christianity into the public classroom. Just look at the push to insert Creationism in the science classroom in several states in that part of the country. Reintroducing school prayer is a campaign issue again and again. Atheist children are outcasts in some schools, there has been a documentary or two on the subject.

Quote:

ACLU-TN's recent letter to superintendents, as well as the organization's "Know Your Rights: Religion in Public Schools – A Guide for Administrators and Teachers," can be found at www.aclu-tn.org/religiousfreedom.htm#resources.

I can't access the site and I'm not sure why it would require a username and password. Maybe someone else can investigate that. But from the title I found the guide from a different ACLU site: Know Your Rights: Religion in Public Schools - A Guide for Administrators and Teachers, and a more thorough news summary of what is in it for those who don't want to read a 4 page paper: ACLU provides paper on religious rights in schools

Re holidays:

Quote:

Holiday Celebrations
If public schools hold holiday celebrations, they should make every effort to accommodate diverse faiths during the holiday season. Students cannot be forced to participate in any event that offends his or her beliefs, and school officials should make every effort to accommodate diverse faiths during the holiday season by including their customs, songs and traditional foods at parties and other in-school events. However, assemblies dominated by religious music would raise constitutional concerns.

The United States Supreme Court has determined that schools may celebrate the holidays and create displays as long as they so do within “the context of the Christmas season” and the religious component of their display does not dominate but simply represents one element of a holiday that has obtained secular status in our society. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465.U.S. 668, 679, and 691 (1984). Under this ruling, a Christmas tree would be appropriate while a cross or a nativity scene would not. Crosses and nativity scenes are purely religious symbols that have not gained secular status in our society and therefore may not be displayed in public schools.

One should also note the paper cites a number of times/places religious activity, especially prayer, is allowed.

Quote:

“See You at the Pole”
Organized events such as “See You at the Pole” are permissible under certain conditions. “See You at the Pole” involves prayer meetings held before the start of the school day at a pre-arranged site on school grounds. Similar to guidelines outlined in the Equal Access Act, outside persons may not direct, conduct, control or regularly attend the activities of such student groups. Additionally, schools may not circumvent the ban against school-sponsored prayer by initiating such events and delegating the responsibilities to students, or by obtaining “permission” from parents. Furthermore, schools may not advertise or promote such events within the school either verbally or in writing. Within this framework schools prevent the impression of endorsement, equally respecting the practices of students of all religions.

Free Exercise of Religion
The ACLU has always defended students’ right to pray individually and voluntarily in school as long as they do not disrupt regular school activities. For example, students may be allowed to read their Bibles on the school bus or pray together before lunch; however, they may not force other students to read along or listen. We also have defended the Free Exercise rights of students of many faiths when government officials have interfered with their religious freedom. To cite just a few examples, the ACLU has defended: a high school basketball player in Alabama kicked off the team because he missed Sunday practice in order to attend church; an eighth grader in California barred from wearing a shirt that read “Real Women Love Jesus;” and a Vermont family who refused to provide their child’s Social Security Number to school authorities because of their fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

For the state to even consider this letter as something worthy of remote association with terrorism was absolutely ludicrous at best and very worrisome at worst.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

... Individuals and events are quite routinely classed as 'suspicious', and just as often absolved of suspicion, every single day as the machine of law enforcement clanks on. While I understand that someone might feel incensed or have hurt feelings to find out that one of their favorite organizations' events was considered suspicious at some point, it's not any cause for alarm if they're not throwing people in jail.

Looking at my above post citations, Checkmite, do tell us how anyone could have possibly mistakenly classified this letter or the ACLU as "suspicious"

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

I think there is truly no more bizarre creation of the political left than the idea that in order to uphold the First Amendment, it is necessary and appropriate to censor and suppress the expression of religious beliefs and heritage in certain contexts.

The purpose of the First Amendment is very specifically, explicitly, to protect the very rights that groups such as the ACLU are so determined to use it as an excuse to violate with impunity.

Yeah, man. I'm right there with you. I, for one, am sick of these ACLU thugs. I mean, who elected these guys, anyways? They're always going around enforcing their interpretation of the constitution on everyone, and there's nobody there to stop them! You know what? There oughta be some kind of a system that can put an end to this. I dunno, like a place where people can argue both sides of an issue, and some guy can judge whom is correct.

One of these days, man. One of these days...

[Uncayimmy]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Looking at my above post citations, Checkmite, do tell us how anyone could have possibly mistakenly classified this letter or the ACLU as "suspicious"

When the letters were opened, a little puff of powder came out?

[thaiboxerken]

I like how people are defending the "oppressed Christian" mainstream here.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I like how people are defending the "oppressed Christian" mainstream here.

If you can't see how Christians are being held down by godless, heathen atheists every single day then...

Yeah, I can't see it either.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

I think there is truly no more bizarre creation of the political left than the idea that in order to uphold the First Amendment, it is necessary and appropriate to censor and suppress the expression of religious beliefs and heritage in certain contexts.

Well, there's a reason for that. That idea is not a creation of the political left, but a straw-man projected onto the ACLU by the political right in order to justify policies that violate the rights of minority religions not to have an popular religion 'established' upon them.

Precisely because the ACLU is right.... and has been well-documented to be right, as witnessed by the number of court cases it's won on this issue,... it must be demonized and misrepresented by the would-be theocrats on the political right.

Quote:

The purpose of the First Amendment is very specifically, explicitly, to protect the very rights that groups such as the ACLU are so determined to use it as an excuse to violate with impunity.

And once again, Bob Blaylock illustrates that his political theories are entirely orthogonal not only to constitutional law, but also to common sense.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Looking at my above post citations, Checkmite, do tell us how anyone could have possibly mistakenly classified this letter or the ACLU as "suspicious"

The citations from the pamphlet aren't relevant, because that wasn't what was sent. But the actual letter (the site works for me) doesn't seem all that horrible. Unfortunately, all that really leads me to believe is that it was possibly something aside from the text of the letter that was found "suspicious". Perhaps the packaging? The return address? Perhaps mass-mailing every single superintendent was reminiscent of some past criminal activity in a separate case? I don't know - and you can't really expect an explanation from the state, because if there's any kind of "here's things that are officially suspicious" policy list it's obvious that law enforcement would not want to make that public. Even so, determining what is suspicious and what is not is law enforcement's bag. There would be concern if it was a matter of racial or sexual features or whatnot figuring into who or what is or is not suspicious, but as that doesn't seem to be the case here I don't see why there's basis for censure. For whatever reason, this specific letter-writing event was found suspicious. Obviously nothing came of it, so...? It's equally absurd to gimp law enforcement by preventing it from noticing some given activity involving government offices and simply dog-earing the page corner in case they wanted to take a closer look later, which seems to be pretty much all this was.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The citations from the pamphlet aren't relevant, because that wasn't what was sent. But the actual letter (the site works for me) doesn't seem all that horrible. Unfortunately, all that really leads me to believe is that it was possibly something aside from the text of the letter that was found "suspicious". Perhaps the packaging? The return address? Perhaps mass-mailing every single superintendent was reminiscent of some past criminal activity in a separate case? I don't know - and you can't really expect an explanation from the state, because if there's any kind of "here's things that are officially suspicious" policy list it's obvious that law enforcement would not want to make that public. Even so, determining what is suspicious and what is not is law enforcement's bag. There would be concern if it was a matter of racial or sexual features or whatnot figuring into who or what is or is not suspicious, but as that doesn't seem to be the case here I don't see why there's basis for censure. For whatever reason, this specific letter-writing event was found suspicious. Obviously nothing came of it, so...? It's equally absurd to gimp law enforcement by preventing it from noticing some given activity involving government offices and simply dog-earing the page corner in case they wanted to take a closer look later, which seems to be pretty much all this was.

Now I can open the site, the 'ID/password needed' glitch is gone.

I find your, "maybe it was [x]" to be a stretch. You have zero evidence to support your speculation, when confronted the state agency made no such excuse and instead back peddled. OTOH, there is lots of evidence for a high level of Christianity practiced within the state and within the school district. The ACLU cited numerous parental complaints from the school population. It's much more likely some Christian within the state agency was offended and responded rashly to the perceived "war on Christmas" that Fox News and other groups promote. Bet his superiors weren't happy.


BTW, here's the link to the letter now that the site isn't blocked. Of course there is nothing bad there. What did you expect?