Interview With Jordan Lorence of ADF
6th Sep 2005, 12:08 GMT
A big thank you to Greg Scott for arranging this interview. Jordan Lorence is a Senior Council attorney at the Alliance Defense Fund. I started out the interview with the basic questions. Jay: How did you get involved with ADF? Jordan: Ive been working with Religious Liberty cases since 1984 after graduating law school. ADF formed in 1993, and got off the ground in January of 1994. They asked me to come on board and I applied for a grant early on. They offered me a job in 2001. Jay: How did ADF come into existence? Jordan: They formed basically as a strategy to promote religious liberty, traditional family values, and the value of life. Their main concern was the dramatic loss of religious freedom in Americas courts, partly through actions of groups such as the ACLU. 30 ministries came together in 1993 to launch ADF. Some of the founding members included the late Dr. Bill Bright, the late Larry Burkett, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and the late Marlin Maddoux. Shortly after forming they hired Alan Sears to be president. Jay: What do you think of Representative Hostettlers proposal of thePublic Expression of Religion Act? Jordan: H. R. 2679? We support that. A lot of abuse has taken place by attorneys dealing with the Establishment Clause. The ACLU has definitely abused it by using it as leverage in out of court settlements. They make a lot of ground just through threatening a lawsuit, and settling it out of court. Jay: This legislation only applies to the Establishment Clause. Is that correct? It would not apply to the Religious Expression Clause? Jordan: That is correct. Jay: Would this not affect legitimate cases in which the government actually abuses the Establishment Clause? Would this legislation affect the ADF in any way? Jordan: It really wouldnt affect the ADF very much, if at all. What has happened is an abuse of the system. Like I said earlier, a lot of the Establishment Clause cases have been settled out of court through the use of threatening lawsuits. A lot of these cases actually dont have enough merit to pass Court muster. This new legislation works towards preventing that abuse. If it passes, it will make the ACLU think twice about threatening these types of cases. It probably wont stop them, but it will force them to make sure they are completely legitimate. Jay: A lot of people want to know why we cant sue the ACLU as a group of people for its destructive and dangerous actions to America. Micheal Savage has mentioned RICO lawsuits. Could the ACLU be sued for bias toward Christianity? Jordan: That would be a very difficult lawsuit, and frankly one that probably wouldnt be won. It is just the way the courts are set up to work. I highly doubt a case like that could be made effectively. Even the bloodiest axe murderer gets representation. Jay: I hear the ACLU cry alot about the Freedom of Information Act, yet when called the ACLU I was told they would not release their Policy guide. I was told it was for internal purposes only, and not for the public. Does the Freedom of Information Act not apply to them also? Jordan: No, the Freedom of Information Act only applies to the government. The ACLU is a private organization, and dont legally have to reveal anything they dont want to. As a private organization they hold that right. Jay: In order to be have their non-profit status, dont they have to be non-partisan? Jordan: They claim to be non-partisan. Jay: Are they? In many cases such as for pro-life protesters they seem to have chosen sides. Jordan: I well just put it this way; Some of the biggest cases of religious liberty are about equal access for religious groups to meet on the same grounds as others. There have been five cases in the Supreme Court since 1981. These were cases that were very straight forward cases, in which ADF has been involved. The ACLU are always very reluctant to support one side or the other in these cases. In my opinion, only ideology could prevent this. Another example is just as you mentioned, in cases involving pro-life parties. Jay: If you dont mind, I have a few questions from some other people. Jordan: Sure. Jay: Nedd of stoptheaclu.org has this question: My big issue that I could use some clarity on is how we can explain to people, Constitutionally speaking, how there is no 1st amendment right to, say, pornography or same sex marriage. Since I identify myself with the Constitution Party (with a slant of Libertarianism), I believe most of what our government does is unconstitutional. The government has no Constitutional authority to provide health care, Medicare, Social Security retirement, health care, education, force Americans to wear seat belts or get vaccinations, etc. However, I believe it is a benefit to America to affirm traditional marriage and not homosexual marriage, for example, or to keep porn, particularly child porn, out of our land, for another example. Those are just two examples where the ACLU poses a problem and bastardizes the Constitution to suit themselves. Id like to know how to be able to explain why a marriage amendment and a ban on porn is constitutional. This bugs me more than anything else when trying to deal with the liberals who write me. Jordan: When polygamists tried the courts the Supeme Court said that marraige was defined, and always has been defined as being between one man and one woman. A constitutional Amendment would define this inherently. As far as pornography goes, the Supreme Court has said it can be prosecuted. The question is how far, or what constitutes as legal pornography. Child pornography is definitely outside those bounds. Jay: Kender, a fellow friend, and blogger has this question. I feel the ACLU promotes Secular Humanism, a religion by all definitions, including SCOTUS. Why has nobody taken THEM to court on this? Jordan: Secular humanism is a religion for a tax exempt status, however I think it would be troubling to make an Establishment Clause case out of something involving it. What needs to happen is to shrink down the number of establishment jursidiction cases. I think something like that would be counterproductive. Sort of like cutting off the nose to spite the face, if you know what I mean. Jay: So what can people do to help fight the ACLU? Jordan: The best thing people can do is support organizations like the The Alliance Defense Fund trying to battle the ACLU in court and law schools to be a counter force. What you do at stoptheaclu.com and stoptheaclu.org is also important in making the general public aware of the actions of the ACLU. That is the reason Alan Sears has written his new book, ACLU Vs. America. Another thing people can do is write their Congress to support judicial nominees that will strictly uphold the Consitution. We agree with these ways to fight the ACLU. We want to thank Mr. Lorence for taking the time for our interview, and for Greg Scott arranging it. Original Blog
Latest news from American Daily:
- Oil, Terror & Environmental Pipedreams
- America United We Stand Divided We Are
- Public-School Indoctrination Camps - How The Democrats Love Them
- From the Ashes
- I Tremble For My Country
- Major Server Crash!
- As the Democrat Partying Dies Down...
- The Identity of the Anthrax Killers
- Iraq: Dems' Only Chance = Connect with Street Killers
- "Whatever" Christianity (Part 1)