Comments (49)

Anonymous wrote on June 15, 2007 9:44 AM:

I also read yesterday that the DOJ has been awarding Christian political appointees disproportionally with salary bonuses.

Wrong, just wrong

FlyOnTheWall wrote on June 15, 2007 9:47 AM:

I'm all for the general thrust of the Times article. But it's important to note that religious discrimination is a real problem in America, and one that was often taken insufficiently seriously by past administrations. Justice's enforcement of the zoning exemption for religious institutions, in particular, strikes me as an important effort - and one that, the Times notes, benefited a wide array of religious movements. (The practical effect of the zoning, in many cases, was to exclude new religious groups from entering entrenched communities - a largely white-ethnic suburb could, for example, throw unending procedural hurdles in front of plans to build a mosque. It's subtler than redlining, but no less effective.) It's unfortunate that the Times chooses to lump these cases together with the absurd and the indefensible, including the notorious candy-cane case.

Django wrote on June 15, 2007 9:54 AM:

So the Civil Rights Division is redirecting its priorities towards investigating "...trafficking cases, typically involving foreign women used in the sex trade, a favored issue of the religious right."

Would this apply to the female guest workers brought in to work the sweatshops in the Northern Marianas and forced into prostitution to support themselves? This was a big moneymaker for Jack Abramoff.

No, wait a minute. Tom DeLay says that's just free enterprise at work. Never mind.

Mrs Panstreppon wrote on June 15, 2007 9:56 AM:

To fight human trafficking, the DOJ sent Bradley Schlozman on at least two trips around the world. Below is a link to the DOJ April 2005 issue of the Anti-Trafficking News Bulletin which has pix of Schlozman in Cambodia. The August 2005 bulletin has a photo of Schlozman in Indonesia.

I'd like to know more about Schlozman's efforts fighting human trafficking. Surely, he devoted a substantial amount of time to the trafficking issue to justify two expensive overseas trips.

Bearpaw wrote on June 15, 2007 9:57 AM:

More about that "candy cane" case:

The ACLU also helped win that case, and rightly so. It was a stupid move on the part of the school.

There's significant precedent that students' First Amendment rights are protected to the extent that their speech does not disrupt the educational process. Somehow I can't see passing out candy canes and religious literature outside of class time -- however "lurid" the school officials claimed it was -- as disruptive.

As far as I'm concerned, this is one thing that the CRD of the DOJ did *right*, though I'm inclined to give more credit to the ACLU.

As a side note, this is one of many cases where the ACLU has appropriately defended the First Amendment rights of Christians, not that the so-called Religious Right ever gives them any credit for it.

spencers mom wrote on June 15, 2007 10:11 AM:

Django, don't forget that Delay/Abramoff fought and WON the right to have those sweatshop-produced clothes labeled "made in the USA".

One of the MANY reasons I no longer shop at WalMart.

As for the candy canes, my son gets these, along with the "J" for Jesus story, from his Sunday school class. Just where it belongs. Not on publicly-funded school grounds.

But you gotta love the ACLU. The Right explodes when the ACLU fights for issues opposing their agenda, but remains oh so quiet when the ACLU also defends the Right's point of view.

PEACE

Django wrote on June 15, 2007 10:12 AM:

There's nothing objectionable per se about the Civil Rights Division focusing on religious discrimination. The real outrage here is the shift in priorities away from racial discrimination and towards support of state-sponsored "voter integrity" measures obviously designed to suppress minority turnout.

JR wrote on June 15, 2007 10:14 AM:

Wow. I've heard of shoving religion down other people's throats, but this is ridiculous...

mbartv wrote on June 15, 2007 10:17 AM:

One of the things Congress must do is use the budget and confirmation powers to strangle this monkey business. Cutting all travel funds for the DOJ Secretary's office (including junket money for the Schlozmann's) would be a great first step.

goldberry wrote on June 15, 2007 10:18 AM:

Ex-schoolboard member here. I'm going to guess that in the candy cane case, the school administration was wrong to suspend the students. The school can't interfere with personal expressions of religion and devotion. Here's the questions I would have asked:
1.) Did the givers insist that the school administration help them distribute the candy?
2.) Did the givers require that all students get one?
3.) Did the recipients have the right to refuse the candy?
4.) Was the distribution disruptive? If so, did the school allow for the distribution under less disruptive circumstances?
If the administration took a neutral stance and allowed the students to distribute the candy canes in a non-disruptive manner, what's the problem? Kids share a lot of controversial ideas a school not all of them religious. As long as no coersion was involved and the school did not actively participate, there was no reason to suspend the students. If Hindu students had distributed colored powder for Holi and included a card describing the celebration of the gods and goddesses associated with this holiday, would the school have suspended them? What about Valentine's Day cards or Shamrocks for St. Paddy's Day?
I'm siding with the students on this one. Sounds like the school overreacted unless there is something about the students and their backers that made the candy cane distribution particularly offensive.

jeffgee wrote on June 15, 2007 10:21 AM:

Next, they'll send Neil Bush to investigate the sex trade in Thailand. Oh, wait, he already did that on his own. And what a good time he had!

Mrs P wrote on June 15, 2007 10:26 AM:

O.T. but does anyone know if DOJ spokeswoman, Cynthia Magnuson, is related to Roger Magnuson, the big Minneapolis GOP lawyer who helped Rachel Paulose get her USA slot?

Austin Cooper wrote on June 15, 2007 10:27 AM:

"But it's important to note that religious discrimination is a real problem in America, and one that was often taken insufficiently seriously by past administrations."

Uh-huh. It's a real problem, all right. When compared with, say the disproportionate amount of governmental support shown things religious, at the expense of a division between church and state. Or demanding that 'creationism' be taught along with science as if they were co-equal disciplines. Or, compared with the government providing the comfort of silence to various christian groups when they verbally assault and threaten gays, persons of color, and women. Or, when some of these same christians use the cover of a religious and tax-free status to launder donations for Republican political efforts.

Or, when that administration is fully complicit in forcing religiously-based values and on an entire society, whether the society wants it or not -- and, through discriminatory hiring practices, ensure theor agenda continues, *sub rosa*, by putting christians into senior civil service positions where they can effectively dictate policy, no matter what some stupid, hellbound liberal Senator or President thinks.

Yes, Fly -- We have so much to thank this administration for, because religious discrimination would seem to be a real problem, all right. And if you're asserting that zoning restrictions against religious groups and their houses of worship have caused more actual harm to the society ...

Well, it's a free country, at the moment. You go right ahead.

The Bobs wrote on June 15, 2007 10:31 AM:

jeffgee,

I wouldn't be surprised if Schlozman went there for the same reason Neil Bush visits Thailand.

steveiray wrote on June 15, 2007 10:34 AM:

Somebody said that George Bush needed a pet monkey to distract attention from Iraq (Gotta go, the monkey's going apeshit in the Roosevelt Room). I think that with Alberto he's found one.

steveiray wrote on June 15, 2007 10:34 AM:

Somebody said that George Bush needed a pet monkey to distract attention from Iraq (Gotta go, the monkey's going apeshit in the Roosevelt Room). I think that with Alberto he's found one.

Mrs P wrote on June 15, 2007 10:37 AM:

I wish the NYT had provided total number of hires:

"Figures provided by the department show that from 2003 through 2006, there was a notable increase of hirings from religious-affiliated institutions like Regent University and Ave Maria University. The department hired eight from those two schools in that period, compared to 50 from Harvard and 13 from Yale."

Does anyone know if there is a list of all DOJ hires by school for 2003-2006 online?

jeffgee wrote on June 15, 2007 10:40 AM:

The Bobs-
"I wouldn't be surprised if Schlozman went there for the same reason Neil Bush visits Thailand."

Like when the guy caught with kiddie porn on his computer says it's for "research"

FlyOnTheWall wrote on June 15, 2007 10:42 AM:

Austin,

I made no comparative claims, nor did I suggest that the Justice Department has made an appropriate allocation of resources over the past six years. Senior officials in the department have much to answer for, including many of the outrageous abuses of power that you list.

None of that obviates my central point. The Times made a causal claim - that the abandonment of traditional civil rights concerns was linked directly to the pursuit of cases of religious discrimination. I think that's poppycock. There was no reason that these two priorities necessarily had to conflict - the administration could easily have expanded the Civil Rights office to accomodate a broader mandate, hiring new attorneys in a religious-rights unit to supplement, not replace, those who were doing excellent work on civil rights.

That Justice instead chose to *shift* resources, dismissing or ignoring career staffers and downgrading the importance of racial discrimination, speaks to its twisted priorities, and is scandalous. So by all means, let's attack the Justice Department for its passivity in these cases, for its aiding and abbetting of the broader Republican strategy of disenfranchising minority voters, and for its inability to see and respond to clear injustice.

But I stand by my earlier point. To quote from the Times article: > Landsberg intends it as a criticism, but I see it as a fairly damning indictment of the status quo ante. Religious discrimination is a real problem, and it had been ignored. I hope that when we retake the White House in '08, the new President rights the balance here by restoring the centrality of race and national origins - but that he also continues the excellent work that's been done on the subject of religious discrimination.

David O wrote on June 15, 2007 10:47 AM:

Even before the First Amendment, we had the 6th Article of the Constitution, which ends:

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

You'd have a tough time convincing me that the current crowd isn't applying religious tests for employment.

Mrs P wrote on June 15, 2007 10:59 AM:

Schlozman Junket #3 - Photo of Bradley Schlozman in Tanzania in January 2006 in DOJ 8/06 Anti-Trafficking New Bulletin (link below).

To date:

Schlozman Junket #1 - Cambodia, 1/05
Schlozamn Junket #2 - India, Sometime before 8/05
Schlozman Junket #3 - Tanzania, 1/06

With his vast experience in fighting human trafficking, why didn't the DOJ put Schlozman back into battle after he got canned from the Missouri USA job?

Powkat wrote on June 15, 2007 11:00 AM:

Sorry, but if my kid had come home from grade school with some screwy nutball explanation for candy canes I would have told him, 'some people are crazy, honey. We need to be nice to them, but this is just some very insecure person's attempt to force us all to think like he does. You can ignore it, because it's just ignorant.'

The 'J' is for Jesus? Where do they get this crap?

Mrs P wrote on June 15, 2007 11:23 AM:

Schlozman Junket #4! Germany, during his USA tenure

On p. 6 of the DOJ Winter 2006-2007 Anti-Trafficking News Bulletin, the DOJ reports that USA-WDMO Bradley Schlozman "undertook a week of consultation with German anti-trafficking officials." A photo of Schlozman with members of the German Bundestag accompanies the article.

Schlozman's speech at the 10/06 Anti-Trafficking convention in New Orleans is on p. 7 - "How to create a market for anti-trafficking cases even if you don't think you have an anti-trafficking problem in your area."

Somebody has to find out why anti-trafficking expert Bradley Schlozman isn't out there fighting the good fight.

Buckets wrote on June 15, 2007 11:27 AM:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the candy distribution in itself. Forget about "J is for Jesus" and "red is for blood" (have another lick! yummy!). Do we allow groups to hand out treats in the school yard generally, even without bizarre messages?

Which I think raises another problem. If someone tried to distribute free candy because (say) it was Halloween or someone's birthday, no one would bat an eye when a school decided to disallow it. Attach the distribution to a whacky proselytization-scheme and it becomes untouchable.

Mr. G wrote on June 15, 2007 11:38 AM:

When the sainted Founders beloved of Constitutional literalists protected religion from state interference, was there big bucks televangelism, and was running a church a big business with real estate development, and all the rest of it?

I am suspicious of the motives that get the feds involved in exempting churches from local taxes.

Mrs P wrote on June 15, 2007 11:41 AM:

More on USA Schlozman's anti-trafficking initiative in Missouri- link below.

The guy knows how to make himself sound important:

"..Prior to his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Schlozman, who served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division, traveled throughout the world to coordinate and implement the Justice Department’s human trafficking initiatives. Schlozman was also involved in launching several human trafficking task forces in other federal districts..."

Again, why isn't anti-trafficking expert Bradley Schlozman in the DOJ's anti-trafficking prosecutorial unit or on the anti-trafficking task force?

Jane wrote on June 15, 2007 11:49 AM:

Yes zoning laws can be used to bar new relgious institutions but using a religious test to say who gets exempted from local zoning preferences is wrong.

Why should a church be allowed to evade zoning when a secular institution such as a private school isn't. To me this sounds uncomfortably close to establishment.

Steve5117 wrote on June 15, 2007 12:35 PM:

Mrs. P.

I just read Starting a Task Force With No Money Down and I was intrigued at this paragraph;

"Specifically, the attorneys and staff in my office have developed such an outstanding professional relationship with the local law enforcement agencies that referrals are coming directly to my office instead of being filtered through a federal investigative agency. Now don’t get me wrong — the FBI, ICE, and the Department
of Labor have all been terrific partners. But when a prosecutor hears about a case directly from the officer walking the beat or working with the vice squad — there is an opportunity to get facts in real time, shape an investigation, and greatly expedite the ultimate referral process."

Basically he is saying the DoJ will control all aspects of any investigation, including whether or not it is even worthy of another agencyhaving an opportunity to evaluate the merits of the information being given to them."

What Bradley boy is saying is to give your tips to us (CRD DoJ) who will then open an investigation that will allow them to NOT comment on any aspects of an on-going investigation (if the tip involved a repug)or to cite it as one of several investigations going on around the country. He flat out says he wants street level tips and that it is ok to bypass normal procedures (that would insure that everyone's constitutional rights were protected.

Then again, they could assert that the people being smuggled in were terrorists and there goes any protection for them.

I also noticed just how short Bradley is in that group photo. He's shorter than the two women. Probably has something to do with his "commanding personality.

I wonder if Bradley would accept as a gift one of Matt Roloff's (Little People, Big World) step-stools of if he justs insists that the hotels stays at (while he flits around the country and world) have one availble for him, along with 2 TVs tuned to Faux News.

Michael wrote on June 15, 2007 12:44 PM:

As long as Gonzo and the rest of these bozos are running the non-justice department, I submit that congress should defund the whole department. In particular the "civil rights division." This division is being run like a repuke hit squad. Just defund now and stop the non-sense.

Michael wrote on June 15, 2007 12:45 PM:

As long as Gonzo and the rest of these bozos are running the non-justice department, I submit that congress should defund the whole department. In particular the "civil rights division." This division is being run like a repuke hit squad. Just defund now and stop the nonsense.

Michael wrote on June 15, 2007 12:45 PM:

As long as Gonzo and the rest of these bozos are running the non-justice department, I submit that congress should defund the whole department. In particular the "civil rights division." This division is being run like a repuke hit squad. Just defund now and stop the nonsense.

Michael wrote on June 15, 2007 12:51 PM:

Oops, sorry, I didn't mean to post the same thing three times.

Bugboy wrote on June 15, 2007 12:57 PM:

The Church has turned (turned? It ALWAYS has been about business and power!) into big business, and should pay taxes.

End of story, end of controversy, end of questions of right or wrong. Treat them as any other business and do away with the crap exemptions. If people feel strongly about their church, let them give to cover the taxes. Tithing is huge business, and it flies under the radar.

To do otherwise would screw the taxpayer, appropriate since screw is this post's security code.

Mrs P wrote on June 15, 2007 1:09 PM:

Thanks, Steve. I didn't catch that on my first reading of Schlozman's self-congralatory speech (link below - p. 7).

I like the bit about how working without a middleman allows Schlozman to prioritize what cases will be brought and when they will be commenced.

714Day wrote on June 15, 2007 1:13 PM:

Okay, I'm reading with both eyes open today.
Just thought I'd mention that they don't battle for ALL Christian organizations, only those which represent the Ashcroftian view.
All Saints in Pasadena, California has a large liberal congregation. A sermon on Jesus' teachings as they hold up to perspectives of candidates was considered political and in violation of separation of church and state. They came into scrutiny immediately after said sermon and are still in jeopardy regarding non-profit staus. This as opposed to the right wing congregations who used the altar as a bully pulpit for Bush and handed over church rosters to the Republican party without repercussion of any kind.
It's grotesque.

Steve5117 wrote on June 15, 2007 1:28 PM:

There is hope! My right-wing, Christian Conservative friend conceded that ALL politicans are crooks, even republicans.

When I asked him if there was a special punishment he would use against any republican politician that was found guilt of crimes against the American people his answer suprised and intrigued me. "I'd make them fight as gladiators on pay-per-view TV, shame them and make money off of them."

I can't wait for Ladies night and Doan vs Goodling. Gonzo will have to be a Saturday night special, but I can't decide between a lion or a tiger as his opponet. The lion would be most appropiate, I guess!

Mark F. wrote on June 15, 2007 1:36 PM:

I've got red polka dots on my underwear. Blood of Jesus?

Mark F. wrote on June 15, 2007 1:43 PM:

"I'd make them fight as gladiators on pay-per-view TV, shame them and make money off of them."

Something tells me your friend only *thinks* he's a Christian...

Steve5117 wrote on June 15, 2007 1:56 PM:

Mark F

Unfortunately he KNOWS he a Christian, he quit thinking when he decided to become one. We don't discuss politics or religeon, but anal intercourse (with a woman of course) is a good topic for him especially when smoking a joint!

He really needs to be a politician!

slb wrote on June 15, 2007 2:24 PM:

Powkat: "The 'J' is for Jesus? Where do they get this crap?"

The same place they get the stories about people waking up in bathubs of ice with a kidney missing, or Coca-Cola being a spermicide, I guess.

Snopes says (as you might guess) that all that stuff about the candy cane's religious origins is hokum. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/candycane.asp

714Day wrote on June 15, 2007 3:14 PM:

"I'd make them fight as gladiators on pay-per-view TV, shame them and make money off of them."
"Unfortunately he KNOWS he a Christian, he quit thinking when he decided to become one."

Interesting take on the Christian thing, your pal has.
Don't remember the New Testament text on the bloodletting for disagreeables. Want to ask your Buddy where he gets this one?

Steve5117 wrote on June 15, 2007 3:18 PM:

slb
Date: June 15, 2007 02:24 PM

Watching to see if christians accept candy canes as sacred symbols of christmas might give insight into the adoption of the display of decorated trees and the giving of gifts as "religeous symbols".

Austin Cooper wrote on June 15, 2007 3:21 PM:

"Landsberg intends it as a criticism, but I see it as a fairly damning indictment of the status quo ante. Religious discrimination is a real problem, and it had been ignored. I hope that when we retake the White House in '08, the new President rights the balance here by restoring the centrality of race and national origins - but that he also continues the excellent work that's been done on the subject of religious discrimination."

Fly, could you please expand on your use of the phrase, "centrality of race and national origins" and its context?

My initial response to you contained a fair amount of blunt sarcasm, some of which may have been misplaced.

If I'm going to escalate in a reply and use a rethorical gutting knife, it should be for an honest reason, and not just to engage in some fireworks for the cheap seats -- so then, if you please.

Steve5117 wrote on June 15, 2007 3:38 PM:

Posted by: 714Day
Date: June 15, 2007 03:14 PM

My friend was a longhair, biker type, blue collar worker who converted after his 4th marriage. He is one of several christians I met who shared with me the types of weapons they own. One of the others told me about the guarded compound he lived in, and about how blacks that lived in the vicinity knew not to approach the area without a white escort.

Interestingly enough, my friend has gay friends and black friends that I've met when they visit him. Go figure, huh.

bjobotts wrote on June 15, 2007 3:55 PM:

These religious "zealots" have as their mission to take the judiciary to enact rulings and prosecutions for "church" reasons.
Would that candy swords were handed out with an M&M on it to show that the m stands for Mohamed and the sword for what he used to kill the evil ones in reds and white (the red his blood and the white the purity he seeks). Would get a much different ruling then huh.
With all the injustices and discriminations abounding and the DoJ focuses on this candy cane crap...what a waste of time and money. The world must view us as fools and idiots. I know they are stunned that we tolerate the Bush administration.
And now the DoJ is a politicized corrupt hypocrisy that we have to tolerate.

A state of emergency already exists...it just hasn't been declared. It's a citizen's emergency.

bjobotts wrote on June 15, 2007 4:05 PM:

These religious "zealots" have as their mission to take the judiciary to enact rulings and prosecutions for "church" reasons.
Would that candy swords were handed out with an M&M on it to show that the m stands for Mohamed and the sword for what he used to kill the evil ones in reds and white (the red his blood and the white the purity he seeks). Would get a much different ruling then huh.
With all the injustices and discriminations abounding and the DoJ focuses on this candy cane crap...what a waste of time and money. The world must view us as fools and idiots. I know they are stunned that we tolerate the Bush administration.
And now the DoJ is a politicized corrupt hypocrisy that we have to tolerate.

A state of emergency already exists...it just hasn't been declared. It's a citizen's emergency.

quixote wrote on June 16, 2007 7:50 PM:

Granted: the DOJ is a disgrace and their motives stink. But I'm still disturbed by the implication in the piece that slavery should be less of a priority than voting rights. Just because the fundies champion something for reasons of their own doesn't make the thing itself wrong. It's important to stress that fighting slavery is vital -- even if a bunch of moonbats happen to agree -- or it sounds like you think the horrific suffering of thousands of women (millions, worldwide) is a minor issue.

I'm assuming that's NOT what you think.

Bryan H. Bell wrote on June 20, 2007 9:25 PM:

I discovered the DOJ's rather creative use of statistics to bolster its case for a shift in the Civil Rights Division's focus from race/gender discrimination issues to religious discrimination issues.

Check out the details at http://kplusb.org/doj-lies.htm

Bryan H. Bell wrote on June 20, 2007 9:27 PM:

I discovered the DOJ's rather creative use of statistics to bolster its case for a shift in the Civil Rights Division's focus from race/gender discrimination issues to religious discrimination issues.

Check out the details at http://kplusb.org/doj-lies.htm