File:Nadine Strossen 5 by David Shankbone.jpg
There are few organizations in the United States that elicit a stronger emotional response than the American Civil Liberties Union, whose stated goal is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States".  Those people include gays, Nazis, women seeking abortion, gun owners, SPAM mailers and drug users.  People who are often not popular with various segments of the public.  The ACLU's philosophy is not that it agrees or disagrees with any of these people and the choices that they make, but that they have personal liberties that must not be trampled upon.  
In Wikinews reporter David Shankbone's interview with the President of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen, he wanted to cover some basic ground on the ACLU's beliefs.  Perhaps the area where they are most misunderstood or have their beliefs most misrepresented is their feelings about religion in the public sphere.  The ACLU categorically does not want to see religion disappear from schools or in the public forum; but they do not want to see government advocacy of any particular religion.  Thus, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's placement of a ten ton monument to the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse is strenuously opposed; but "Lone Ranger of the Manger" Rita Warren's placement of nativity scenes in public parks is vigorously defended.  In the interview, Strossen talks about how certain politicians and televangelists purposefully misstate the law and the ACLU's work in order to raise funds for their campaigns.
David Shankbone's discussion with Strossen touches upon many of the ACLU's hot button issues:  religion, Second Amendment rights, drug liberalization, "partial-birth abortion" and whether or not George W. Bush should be impeached.  It may surprise the reader that many ideas people have about the most visible of America's civil libertarian organizations are not factually correct and that the ACLU often works closely with many of the organizations people think despise its existence.
David Shankbone:  Why did you want to be an attorney?
DS:  Why?
DS:  What family experiences?
DS:  What were you taught about him?
DS:  When you went to Harvard, were you an activist on campus?
DS:  What would you say the atmosphere was like on campus back then, with all the issues that were being contended with, how would you describe it?
DS:  You had mentioned that one of the things that affected you with your family was seeing points of view not being allowed to be expressed.  Many religious conservatives would say that the ACLU opposes having their points of view in the schools.  How would you respond?
DS:  So there isn’t any opposition to having religious groups meeting inside of public schools?
DS:  Would you defend someone’s right to have a religious meeting in a public school?
DS:  The ACLU has been involved in removing religious symbology from the public forum.  Can you state your views on that?
DS:  Can you give an example of a religious symbology case where the ACLU supported religious freedom?
DS:  Do people misconstrue or misunderstand your work and what you have argued for or against?
DS:  —and the ACLU said—
DS:  —Roy Moore?
DS:  When does a symbol become historical and when is it intrinsically religious?  For instance, a community that was once a mission and they have had a large cross on a mountaintop that to them is more historical marker.
DS:  Well, two years.
DS:  Almost a slave.
DS:  Yes, 3/5ths!  [Laughs]
DS:  That’s always the problem in law:  who is that reasonable observer?  Someone from the community, someone who has just moved into the community?
DS:  Going back to when you have debated religious conservatives and they make the charge that what the ACLU is working toward is no religion in schools, and you can’t have a prayer group, do you think there is a conscious motivation to misrepresent what you have done and want, or is it a misunderstanding?
DS:  Don’t you think the way both sides go about engaging each other harms America?  Take the partial-birth abortion Supreme Court case.  Did you read Justice Stevens' New York Times interview with Jeff Rosen?
DS:  He said it was a silly decision that wasn’t particularly important—
DS:  Yes.  He said it was, in the end, not a particularly important case.
DS:  He was talking about in terms of the effect, that it didn’t have much of an effect because there were other legal alternatives to that particular method of abortion.
DS:  The question I have is that on its face it was deciding one particular issue in the abortion debate, but a lot of pro-choice organizations paint this as, “We are now getting ready to ban abortion; this is the first step on what might be a short road—“
DS:  Yes, a slippery slope.  Isn’t it almost the same thing when the evangelicals say, “They are coming for your prayer, your kids aren’t going to be able to pray or allow God in schools.”
DS:  Is it healthy for us to be ringing these alarm bells every time one nuance in the argument gets addressed?
DS:  But let’s say the Christians give you that, and they say, “This is just the first step and what they ultimately want is not to have the word God said anywhere in the public square.”
DS:  Whereas in the abortion argument it is a stated goal to bring about the end of Roe v. Wade.
DS:  When you hear the phrase “judicial activism” what comes to your mind?
DS:  So you believe in the living Constitution?
DS:  “These are cruel and unusual punishments”
DS:  Do you think there is a right to privacy in the Constitution?
DS:  What argument for capital punishment do you think is most compelling for it?
DS:  The criminal justice system is a rehabilitative system?
DS:  Is that what it should be?
DS:  How does it do that?
DS:  Are you an active member of NORML?
DS:  Do you believe in the decriminalization of marijuana?  
DS:  Can you give me your case for that?
DS:  Should suicide be legal?
DS:  So how would you like to die?
DS:  You wouldn’t want a Terri Schiavo situation?
DS:  So you have the choice, what is your choice?
DS:  What do you think is the greatest threat to humanity right now?
DS:  However you interpret the question.
DS:  How has the Iraq War affected your world view?
DS:  Have you seen a precipitous drop?
DS:  Ahmadinejad came to Columbia and brought that argument up.
DS:  It’s surprising that Hagel gave that criticism since it is his party that has instituted the fear of government into our culture.  Such as Reagan’s famous line that the most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
DS:  When I interviewed Gay Talese, I asked him how the Iraq War affected him and he said it had not.  He said, “I wish it did!”  He said he doesn’t feel anything and that he doesn’t think anyone else does, either.  He feels you can’t have a war affect people unless you have conscription.
DS:  But they see it as voluntary service.  It’s a voluntary army.
DS:  --That’s what Talese said.  Senator Brownback told me he is against conscription, and it’s interesting that the people who are most for the war are the people who are most for a voluntary army.  
DS:  Rangel’s bent is that if people were actually fighting in the wars, or forced to fight, that it would bring public opinion against the war.
DS:  Do you think George Bush should be impeached?
DS:  You just don’t think it would be productive.
DS:  Where do you stand on the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners?  Are the rights accorded to well-armed militias, or is it accorded to unfettered rights of individuals to own guns?
DS:  Last question:  what trait do you deplore in people?
DS:  That’s about the best answer I can think of coming from the President of the ACLU! [Laughs]
DS:  That you deplore in people.
DS:  Do you deplore any in yourself?

Have an opinion on this story? Share it!

Share this: 






This page is archived, and is no longer publicly editable.
Got a correction? Add the template {{editprotected}} to the talk page along with your corrections, and it will be brought to the attention of the administrators.
Please note that due to our archival policy, we will not alter or update the content of articles that are archived, but will only accept requests to make grammatical and formatting corrections.
Note that some listed sources or external links may no longer be available online due to age.
Got a correction? Add the template {{editprotected}} to the talk page along with your corrections, and it will be brought to the attention of the administrators.
Please note that due to our archival policy, we will not alter or update the content of articles that are archived, but will only accept requests to make grammatical and formatting corrections.
ACLU President Strossen on religion, drugs, guns and impeaching George Bush