OpinionJournal reported yesterday (quoting the WAFB-TV Web site):
People on the religious right often accuse their counterparts on the secular left of antireligious bigotry, a description the secular left regards as unfair. But here's someone who seems to be guilty as charged: Joe Cook, head of the American Civil Liberties Union in Louisiana, who's fighting with the Tangipahoa Parish school board over religious speech in government schools. Baton Rouge's WAFB-TV quotes him as follows:
"They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London."
If you don't find this troubling, imagine someone saying the reverse: They don't believe in God, which is the kind of thinking you had with the people who imprisoned dissidents in the gulag and murdered millions through famine.
One can equally imagine someone criticizing a group of Muslim government officials on the grounds that "They believe that they answer to Allah and can therefore ignore court orders restricting Muslim prayer in government institutions, which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London." Fairly criticizing religions is perfectly proper: Religious ideologies, like any other ideologies, are eminently sound targets for public debate (though I recognize that sometimes such criticism is unlikely to be terribly persuasive). But, as I'll discuss a bit more below, the quoted argument does not strike me as fair criticism.
I should note that there seems to have been some context missing from the WFAB quote: The ACLU spokesman reports (and I have no reason to doubt him) that he wasn't just condemning the school board, but alleging that they were persistently violating the law and violating a court order. His comment was thus apparently focused not just on the board's belief in a higher power, but on its view that this belief justifies their resistance to a court order. (I include his entire e-mail to me, responding to my query to him, below.)
But as my Muslim official hypothetical suggests, that's still no reason for analogizing the government officials' religious beliefs — even beliefs that lead them to nonviolently resist a court order that they think improper — to beliefs that spawn terrorism. Lots of people have violated lots of laws because of their religious beliefs: We've seen this in the abolitionist movement, the antiwar movement, the civil rights movement, the "sanctuary" movement aimed at protecting illegal immigrants from certain countries, and more.
Sometimes an insistence on following what one sees as a higher authority has been noble, and sometimes misguided and pernicious. But when it's nonviolent — even if one thinks it's improper or even unconstitutional — it seems to me quite wrong to tar the religious officials with an analogy to terrorism, as if all religiously motivated violation of the law is alike.
I can't speak with complete confidence as to whether Mr. Cook's quote represents religiously bigoted belief on his part. But it does rest on a guilt by association based on group membership — here membership in the group of religious believers, or at least religious believers who believe religious law sometimes justifies violation of secular law — that is in many ways similar to classic religious bigotry (as I think the atheist and Muslim hypotheticals suggest).
In fairness to Mr. Cook, here's his e-mail:
Mr. Eugene Volokh,
In answer to your inquiry, my quote was taken out of context and sensationalized. As background, the media inquiry was about the system wide training that the Tangipahoa Parish School Board was undertaking on Monday. It was in response to an ACLU sponsored lawsuit and consent judgement signed off by the Board nearly a year ago on August 27, 2004. The Board finally acted belatedly to supposedly do in-service training and inform everyone of the contents of the consent judgement. That agreement prohibits prayers over the intercom and at all school sponsored events, including football games and other athletic activities.
Since the consent agreement, four motions for contempt have been filed against the Board and individuals within the system for violations related to the agreement and a court order in February:
At an Amite High School annual awards banquet a student gave a prayer over the speaker system, while the principal endorsed it and did not intervene or admonish the student. This followed on the heels of a teacher who wrote a prayer for a student to give during an end of year banquet. A loudspeaker prayer at a baseball game and a prayer by a student at a school board meeting preceded that incident.
I made a statement against this backdrop of defiance toward the federal courts exhibited by the Board (Defendants Pre-trial Inserts): Defendants reject the notion that the government can tell them how they can and cannot pray, or otherwise place restrictions on the manner in which they choose to open their meetings.
I made a much longer statement to the reporter in reference to the Board's [lack] of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law related to the current case, Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board (USD ED La., 03-2870), and three others filed against them on church state issues over the past eleven years. Against that backdrop, I said something as I recollect to the effect that the Board has exhibited a disrespect for the Constitution and the rule of law as interpreted by the courts. They don't want to abide by the agreement. They have always crossed the line of separation of church and government and that is dangerous to our freedom and democracy. They believe they answer to a higher power than the rule of law, in my opinion, based on their past statements and actions. That is the kind of thinking and mindset that tragically and unfortunately led people to fly airplanes into buildings.
In retrospect, I regret the use of that hyperbole and analogy because the media and others have drawn erroneous conclusions and diverted attention from the real issues at stake. Now, I would say, "The School Board and their supporters who want the government to endorse prayers and religion in the schools are violating the Constitutional speed limit by going 100 mph in a 20 mph school zone. That kind of mindset endangers our freedom and democracy."
Joe Cook, Executive Director
ACLU of Louisiana
Begging to differ, but there's a very precise analogy. That's always been the problem with civil disobedience -- how do you know you're right, and how far is going too far?
I agree with the ACLU fellow that the analogy was imprudent (in the "what the hell was he thinking?" sense of "imprudent"), but it's very dangerous to assume that there's some kind of bright line separating my Higher Law of ignoring my country's laws with Mohammed Atta's Higher Law. Kind of a slippery-slope thing, if I may say so.
Umm... people say it in reverse all the time. That's why the persecution complex of so many on the religious right is so comical. They feel persecuted because of comments like Cook's, but often have no qualms about making the reverse comment.
Doesn't make either justified of course. I'd be more than happy to see Cook's quote condemned and the modern pledge of allegiance was condemned along with it.
Taranto picked an anti-atheist quote he knew would be unacceptable to liberal secularists, and said "If you find this unacceptable, you must also condemn Mr. Cook, or be guilty of bigotry." That seems eminently fair to me.
It is perfectly possible to criticise particular religious ideas without cricising religion as such; indeed many religious groups have supported and even today support obedience to temporal law and legitimate government.
By pointing out that a particular tendency that some religious groups has has motivated some terrible things is not anti-religious. It is, rather, a perfectly legitimate line of argument embodying a legitimate criticism of a real religious idea.
If a private citizen disobeys a court order because of his religious beliefs, he will face punishment from the court, of course, but I don't believe any normative judgment is appropriate. But I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that public officials will honor court orders first, and their religious beliefs second. Mr. Cook complains that the out-of-context quote obscures his real point, which is that these officials improperly put religion above their duty to the law, but then he employs an analogy that has nothing to do with that point anyway.
Aren't we all responsible for encouraging a law-abiding attitude by criticizing law-breakers? It is a good bet that official sanctions alone would not be sufficient to maintain an orderly society (and certainly not without an extremely intrusive state).
Of course, we might allow exceptions, but I don't think we should say that in general it is only the court's business if one of our fellow citizens is disobeying a court order.
A friend of mine has been covering this for her La. newspaper, and trust me, it's religious. Not that you don't get bonus points for bucking the feds.
Guess what. Believers and nonbelievers disagree about a fundamental issue. They'll say nasty things about each other from time to time, even engaging in hyperbole. Please wake me up when I'm supposed to be impressed.
But as a society, applying societal norms, do we value religion, or do we value obedience to the law? Your mileage may vary, but my take is that as an overall society we value both.
"They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you could sit at the front of the bus, when the law clearly states you must give up your seat to a white person."
I am not sure of the precise distinction between Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, but the latter movement was religious in its inception and had no problem violating unjust laws in order to focus attention on them.
That said, I do take Steve's point that there is a difference between private protest and the duties of public office. There is no constitutional right to be a school principal, per se. One could, of course, challenge the constitutionality (or at least the political philosophy) of the establishment of public school systems, but there is a certain dissonance in doing so as an official of the institution in question.
Wow, running for the school board never seemed so ... cool before.
"They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who thought they could sit at the front of the bus, when the law clearly states they must give up their seat to a white person."
liberalismreligion to terrorism.Sometimes an insistence on following what one sees as a higher authority has been noble, and sometimes misguided and pernicious. But when it's nonviolent — even if one thinks it's improper or even unconstitutional — it seems to me quite wrong to tar the religious officials with an analogy to terrorism, as if all religiously motivated violation of the law is alike.
And:
In retrospect, I regret the use of that hyperbole and analogy because the media and others have drawn erroneous conclusions and diverted attention from the real issues at stake.
Eugene: I take it that in retrospect you regret publically endorsing state sponsored torture/killings. Shall we continue to hold that against you, too?
If not, in what way is this different?
I don't get how someone who is as unfailingly civil in his discourse as Eugene can still get so many braying asses in his comments section. What does the existence of anti-atheist bigotry have to do with Eugene's post? Does that mean that anytime someone writes a post criticizing racist (anti-African-American or anti-Hispanic) bigotry, someone else can chime in with the brilliant observation that the victims of such bigotry sometimes engage in anti-Semitic bigotry?
All it takes is one or two folks who feel they are oppressed because they can't have a prayer read over the intercom. They fume with their buddies for a while, possibly get backing from an "interested" party...and then you have a bomb exploding in a federal building somewhere.
Ultimately, it's about principal. Each of us gets his own set and is "free" to stand on them...as long as it doesn't adversely effect others. Prayer in a gov-backed school effects people negatively...if you disagree then you assume that everyone in the "captive" audience agrees with the prayer by virtue of their faith. Which is another incorrect assumption...that the students are all practicing the same faith...
If folks want to have prayer over the intercom, they need to have it in a non-gov backed school. I for one, do not wish to hear prayer over the intercom...especially that which might be from some faith other than what I practice.
Okie...from OKC
However did this country keep freedom and democracy alive more than 2 centuries without ACLU lawsuits? Luckily, our democracy is safe now!
That raises an interesting philosophical point. What about the situation where someone believes that the SCOTUS has no authority over what a local school board does- unless it’s an Article 3 diversity case – and only recognizes their State’s supreme court as being the court of highest jurisdiction? Many people in the school district in question might be just a little curious as to how “Congress shall make no law” now means “your local school board” particularly seeing as how there is little evidence to be found in either the text of the Fourteenth Amendment or the intent of the Framer’s that that was to be the case.
Which reminds me to check the comment thread with the fervent anti-incorporationist ...
P.S.---I'm a white Mississippian, and looking at the horrors that the states sought to protect with their arguments for strict federalism, I think the trend to federal-gov't supremacy has been the best thing to happen in the South since Appomattox. "States' rights" may be an abstract position, like the swastika is an abstract design, but they both stood for deeply racist ideologies.
Essentially creating an unintended thread - saying that Cook's analogy is that religious belief leading to non-violent civil disobedience is equivalent to it leading to violent acts of terrorism - is increasing the specificity of his argument too much to be useful and in my mind knocking down a strawman. Hyperbolic yes, but indicative of ACLU-fueled anti-religious bigotry? I highly doubt it.
If they object to the rules they have every right as citizens to try to change them. But as long as the rules are there they can either stick to them or seek other employment.
I am generally favorably disposed to civil disobedience even when I think the motivation behind it is wrongheaded*; I'm strongly opposed to mass murder even if I agree with the perpetrator's beliefs 100%.
*That is, I'm impressed by the willingness of protesters to suffer for their beliefs. I'm not impressed by people who deliberately do something illegal as a protest and then whine when they're arrested--being unjustly imprisoned being, of course, the entire point of civil disobedience.
As I'm sure you saw in my original comment, I share your criticism of their actions being taken while acting in an official capacity. I would prefer that such people resign in protest and start a private school or home-schooling movement. But that doesn't directly address the question of religious bigotry that started this discussion. I suggest that if Mr. Cook had been a little less inclined to distrust religious people as such, or a little more familiar with their concerns, he might not have been so quick to offer an inappropriate analogy.
Eugene, your analogy makes the same error - you claim that Cook is saying something about religious people (or in analogy about Muslims) but in fact he isn't. Religious people, and by extension religious muslims, can make the point that the belief that duty to God demands that a particular law be broken (or breakfast be eaten) is a mistaken belief. And if it isn't, then that is a legitimate cause for criticism of religion (not a criticism that Cook is making though).
Now the place where I think Cook is mistaken is in the implicit assumption that the significant aspect of 9/11 was that the terrorists thought they were above the law. But the breaking of laws against murder, etc. were only incidental to the terrorists goals, and we judge them primarily on the immorality of their actions, not the illegality of them. The terrorists considered themselves to be above morality (or their victims to be beneath it) which we find to be abhorrent.
Except, maybe, founding the ACLU. ;)
I'm agnostic. Don't tell me that has nothing to do with any of the judgments I make. I would imagine that an Atheist would not attend church (attending church is "doing something," right?)
If that was Mr. Cook had asserted, he would be entirely correct. And it is true that terrorists also kill because they believe it is their duty to God. And your criticism of the atheist comparison is apt. So let's try something different:
Government Official X asserts that he must obey the law there is a "higher law" which compels a different result. That's the kind of thinking that led Germans to send Jews to the camps when Hitler ordered it.
Is that a good enough comparison? Official X believes he must obey the law; some Germans within Hitler's administration believed they had to obey the law. Their motivations are similar, yet the comparison is ridiculous and offensive; Offical X is not a craven servant of Nazis because he follows the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Perhaps we have a new form of Goodwin's law: everything winds up getting compared to terrorists.
To clarify, though - the main point of my comment was that Cook's statement does not state something about religious people, and thus is not bigotry. It is a statement about the reasons particular people are breaking the law.
This does not mean that Cook was correct in his analogy, but he is incorrect for different reasons than bigotry.
As opposed to this, Taranto's statement would reflect bigotry in the speaker because it depends on the speaker believing in something generally about atheists.
I don't know what the school board did, but I presume it violated the Establishment Clause in some way and that the religion its actions support was Christianity (or a particular branch thereof). Making non-Chirstian children spend their days in an environment that treats their religions less favorably is a serious harm to them and to their families. The board is causing this harm by wilfully violating the law in order to further the agenda of its members. This is why its actions resemble terrorism.
Eugene's comments about nonviolent civil disobedience are generally correct, but generally those disobeying the law are the only ones to bear the consequences of their actions. Here the board members are externalizing those consequences so that they fall upon innocent third parties. And the third parties are not picked at random but rather deliberately targeted -- on the basis of their religion.
Sounds like a low-key version of the terrorism principle to me.
Yes, just as obedience to the law is a "low-key" version of the "Good German" principle.
Re: New Goodwin's Law. Heh, I think you're right, that's what's going on here. If you want a metaphor to make a point, this is the obvious one to choose... as inappropriate as it might be
Re: Example. I think I see what you're saying. Put even more simply, "I breath, Hitler breathed, therefore I am like Hitler." is (I hope) ridiculous to the extent that it makes any sort of claim that I would write crap like Mein Kampf, etc. based on what I do in fact share with Hitler.
What I fail to see though is how an accusation of bigotry would fit here, and that is what I am arguing against. The crucial point is one that Eugene makes - does Cook's point rest on guilt by association based on whether someone is religious? It does not.
As a matter of strict grammatical analysis, you're right. But then what is his point? Why mention terrorism at all if not to imply a guilt by association?
The salient characteristic of terrorists which we find blameworthy isn't that their religion comes before earthly law, it's their propensity for mass murder. Just as the salient characteristic of Nazis isn't obedience to civil authority (or making the trains run on time, or wearing miltary uniforms, or pioneering rocket technology), it's mass murder. So you shoudn't--and people generally don't--mention Nazis or terrorists (or Stalin, or Mao) unless you're dealing with someone you think or want to imply is comparable to mass murderers.
If Cook thinks that conservative Christians are equivalent to mass murderers, as his poorly chosen analogy suggests, he is unquestionably a bigot. If he doesn't think that, he should pick a different analogy.
See this part of Edward Hoffman's comment:
generally those disobeying the law are the only ones to bear the consequences of their actions. Here the board members are externalizing those consequences so that they fall upon innocent third parties. And the third parties are not picked at random but rather deliberately targeted -- on the basis of their religion.
The fact is that the officials, unlike Parks, are not being deprived of any rights whatsoever. Their authority in their official capacities is being limited in accordance with law, as is the authority of all public officials. That's all. This is basically no different than limiting their authority to, say, inflict corporal punishment on students. If it's prohibited it's prohibited, their personal opinions notwithstanding.
Yes, just as obedience to the law is a "low-key" version of the "Good German" principle.
This is a non-sequitur. The "Good German" principle involves obeying directives to do specified things, while obedience to the law generally involves obeying directives not to do specified things. There is a big difference -- morally, at least -- between acting and not acting, so your analogy is not a good one.
Remember that the school board's actions violate the law instead of heeding it. The board has limited authority under the law and has chosen to exceed that authority in order to further the interests of its members. I would expect most people on this board to object whenever a government entity exceeds its authority regardless of its motives. Cheering such an action because of the underlying motives seems rather unprincipled.
Do you think the government should generally be free to take actions that are unauthorized but well-motivated? If you don't, why is this situation special? And if you do, could you explain (a) who should decide what is well-motivated and what isn't; and (b) whether you think restrictions on government authority matter it all?
No. I don't support the school board here; Byomtov has captured my thinking quite well.
Nor am I at all convinced that the action/inaction distinction really saves the comparison of the school board to terrorists but not mine of functionaries to Nazis; surely we could find an example of a law compelling complicit inaction on the part of German government officials (e.g., "Don't tell the American press what we're doing") or one compelling action by a school board ("Integrate your high schools"). I still can't see the terrorist or Nazi comparison.
Because if the action/inaction distinction is so very morally critical, then surely the mass murder/no mass murder distinction is even more so. Disobeying the law in a nonviolent manner doesn't make you remotely like a terrorist.
If this is true, then would making Christian children spend their days in an educational environment that treats their beliefs not only "less favorably," but oftentimes as completely backwards and/or ignorant resemble terrorism? And in what way does a less-than-pleasant environment for the agrieved parties resemble bombing/beheading, etc?
I think the essence of your point is that the actions in question are so different that even if there are some plausible analogies, using this particular analogy is hyperbole. But Mr. Cook has already conceded as much.
Incidentally, although this has nothing to do with your point, the Nazis were not law-obeyers in any normal sense. The laws on the books were often "interpreted" (read: twisted or ignored) in the name of serving "the higher purposes" of the Nazis (read: whatever high-placed party officials told them to do). In that sense, the Nazis were not following the rule of law as we know it, but rather were much like a theocracy with Nazi ideology taking the place of religion, and party officials taking the place of clerics. The same is true of the Stalinists and Maoists, with communism in the place of religion.
I also think that is part of why the claim that all atheists are like Stalinists or Maoists is obviously bad. Stalinists and Maoists are actually more like theocrats, because even though they were atheists, their political ideology served a similar role to the religion of theocrats. But atheists in general don't necessarily have such an ideology, because they are defined simply by their lack of religious beliefs.
I'd take the point one step further: this is hyperbole so inappropriate that it betrays Mr. Cook's animus (that is, bigotry) toward religious believers. And I certainly conceded that lumping American atheists in with Stalin is both bigoted and slightly different than what Mr. Cook did.
As for the Nazis/Communists "interpreting" (twisting) the law in a manner which suited their (perhaps religion-like) ideology, I would be rather inclined to say that exactly what the Supreme Court does on a regular basis. But I would never say in response to a constitutional decision I disagreed with, "that's the kind of thinking you had with the Nazis." And if I (or, say, a school board member) did say something like that, I suspect Mr. Cook and his allies would be quick to denounce me as a nutcase, and rightly so.
So thanks for yet another example of why what Mr. Cook said was beyond the pale, and why he should have known better than to say it to begin with.
1. Hyperbole is "unfair".
2. It's "quite wrong" to use violent analogies to nonviolet acts.
3. Bigotry involves "guilt by association based on group membership," which is bad (but only if group membership doesn't compel the guilt).
Thanks for ruining the sports page.
Another U.S. group, known as No More Deaths, set up an aid camp last month near Arivaca, Ariz., helping stranded border-crossers with food, water and medical assistance. The Ark of the Covenant camp will remain in operation through September.
The group has received much of its support from Presbyterian churches in Arizona and elsewhere. Last year, 500 volunteers -- including doctors and nurses -- took part in a similar camp.
Washington Times, August 18, 2005
I only agree with this up to a certain point. Now, it is unclear whether the school board members in this case have a specific agenda, much less a sinister one, in breaking civic law in favor of some "higher" law. But in cases where there is an agenda involved, and that agenda is reprehensible in its own right, the fact that the means of furthering that agenda are non-violent - or even within the law - would not make their proponents or their agenda any less fair game for criticism.
For instance, consider the Islamist - and putatively non-violent - organization of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which has come under scrutiny in the wake of the London terrorist bombings. Even if their professed commitment to non-violence is genuine, their long-term goal is still the establishment of totalitarian Islamic rule across the entire planet. Their difference from al Qaeda (who shares this long-term goal but isn't exactly non-violent) is therefore one of degrees at best. Likewise, the difference between violent and non-violent civil disobedience with any other given religious motivation strikes me as insignificant if the motivation itself is bad.
I'm a bit less confident in my ability to know Mr. Cook's reasons for engaging in hyperbole. Suppose, for example, I compared those who supported public schools to Stalinists. Am I guilty of bigotry, or just hyperbole?
Alternatively, suppose Mr. Cook had compared these people to the mullahs in Iran (a comparison that I think would be a bit more apt, albeit still hyperbolic). Is that necessarily representative of bigotry?
The basic problem with that assumption, as others have noted, is that Mr. Cook was not saying that all religious people were given to ignoring the rule of law, let alone that all religious people were given to doing terrible things. Rather, he was drawing a comparison on the basis that religious people who are willing to violate the law because of their religious views have sometimes done terrible things. And that happens to be a fact, even if he chose an example that was completely out of scale with the events at hand.
1. "They don't believe in God, which is the kind of thinking you had with the people who imprisoned dissidents in the gulag and murdered millions through famine."
The difference here is that the Communists were not motivated by their lack of belief in God. Here, the violators of the law are motivated by their religious belief.
2. "They believe that they answer to Allah and can therefore ignore court orders..."
The problem with this example is that it identifies a specific, unnecessary, sub-set of people who believe religious law defeats the rule-of-law. The sentence then indicates that something about being Muslim increases the likelihood of violating the law. Cook’s comments do not differentiate between different beliefs based on the supernatural. Cook makes a statement about all people who follow their own law rather than the US Constitution. And this is an appropriate distinction: atheists will not violate the law or commit terrorist acts thinking they are fulfilling the will of a higher power, based on their personal faith.
Now we're debating semantics, definitely outside of my field of expertise. I think the question of bigotry comes down partly to a willingness to lump superficially similar but fundamentially different groups of people in order to tar a less offensive group with the acts of a more offensive one.
For instance, I think everyone would agree that the fact that some criminals have dark skin would not justify one saying of someone else with dark skin, "that's the sort of person who commits crime." Everyone would regard that as racial bigotry; the superficial resemblence doesn't justify the linkage. And besides, one could just as easily have said, "that's the sort of person who becomes Secretary of State in the Bush II Administration." Choosing to draw the unfavorable comparison says something about my attitude towards that group.
(Aside: I realize that religion and lawbreaking are both choices, while skin color is not. I don't think it much matters here, but if it does, then it may well be impossible to be "bigoted" against any volutary group, which I think is the wrong result.)
Here, the link is "people who defy the law because of religion." That happens to be a catagory that includes (some) terrorists, this school board, conscientious objectors, anti-nuclear protestors, anti-Soviet Polish Catholics, abolitionists, anti-Communist Chinese Christians, and much of the American civil rights movement. Now, does this school board (regardless of whether you approve or not, and I've already said I don't) more closely resemble terrorists, or one of the other choices on the list?
By insisting on comparing the school board to terrorists instead of Martin Luther King, and by single out their religiosity as the point of concern, Mr. Cook has, it seems to me, made a connection so unjustified that it rises to bigotry.
And yes, I think calling supporters of public schooling "Stalinists" rises to bigotry, although of a very unusual kind. And I thought Rod Paige was wrong (and bigoted) to call the NEA a "terrorist organization," but if we're allowed to make the kind of excessive justifications that people have made for Mr. Cook here, I suppose we could call a teachers' strike a "low-key form of terrorism," since it externalizes costs in an effort to force a political resolution.
On the school board/mullah government question, I think that's terribly overstated, given that the mullahs do far more than say a prayer in school. Not as bad as the terrorists since the connection is closer (religion influencing lawmaking), but still farther than I think a decent respect for others should allow.
If I had to reach for a hyperbolic comparison instead of rationally explaining my position, I'd go for segregationist school boards. Unfair to compare this school board to serious racists, but the similarities are thick on the ground. Plus, you avoid the swipe at religion generally by pointing out that the problem is not the existence of "higher law," but the disobedience of temporal law.
Anyway, I understand that Mr. Cook engaged in hyperbole, and that he was doing so pejoratively. I guess I just don't see how that is necessarily religious "bigotry." Note that in your race case, the person moves from black criminals to all black people. But Mr. Cook didn't move from religious terrorists to all religious people. Instead, he moved from terrorists who used religious beliefs to justify breaking the law to all people whose belief in a higher power leads them to violate the rule of law.
So, at most, I think you could accuse Mr. Cook of "bigotry" against religious people who use their belief in a higher power to justify breaking the law. And while I agree that it is wrong to imply that all such people are bad (as in the civil rights context), I'm not sure it makes sense to call that "bigotry". I would go so far as to say that is a little bit of hyperbole on your part, in fact ... but I won't accuse you of anti-ACLU bigotry.
Would it make anyone feel better if I just said Mr. Cook is a jerk instead of a bigot?
As for me being an ACLU bigot, let's just say I'm not a big fan--but my objection has nothing to do with the fact that they defend unpopular causes that lose at the polls, just like terrorists defend unpopular causes that lose at the polls.
"If this is true, then would making Christian children spend their days in an educational environment that treats their beliefs not only 'less favorably,' but oftentimes as completely backwards and/or ignorant resemble terrorism? And in what way does a less-than-pleasant environment for the agrieved parties resemble bombing/beheading, etc?"
I didn't say that an improper school environment resembled bombing or beheading. I said that forcing third parties to pay the price of advancing your own agenda is a basic aspect of terrorism (it is part of what distinguishes terrorism from other violence), and that the school board is doing this by forcing its religious views on the children in its district.
Would a school board that treats Christianity as "completely backwards and/or ignorant" also resemble terrorists by so doing? Yes, and for the same reason. An anti-Christian agenda is no different from a pro-Christian agenda in my analysis. But you seem to think these are the only options. There is such a thing as being religion-neutral. The vast majority of school districts manage to do this, and each student has the Constitutional right to a religion-neutral public education. That is the whole point.
In this country, few if any governmental entities have ever had official anti-Christian policies. Pro-Christian policies, however, are rather common and would be much more prevalent but for the First Amendment and the court decisions which have interpreted it. How would you feel iuf your children went to public school which promoted the tenets of Judaism -- including that the Messiah has yet to arrive? Wouldn't you be outraged? Why is it so different when a school promotes the message that the Messiah has arrived and that he did so in the person of Jesus Christ?
Your dismissive attitude about government actions which promote Christianity suggest that you have never been a minority member treated as a second-class citizen by your own government. The Constitution protects all of us -- Christians and non-Christians alike -- from such treatment. People who disagree with this rule are free to say so and even to work toward changing the Constitution, but they are not free to disregard it in ways which trammel on the rights of others.
I believe that 8 USC § 1324 of the INA makes it a felony to engage in any conduct that tends to substantially help an alien to remain in the United States unlawfully. US v. Lopez, 521 F.2d 437 (2d Cir. 1975); US v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir. 1999). It is worth emphasizing that the mens rea does not require that the actor know the person is illegal, reckless disregard is sufficient.
When did I suggest that anti-atheist bigotry was an "imaginary specter"? I asked what it had to do with Eugene's post, which was meant to express concern about the (perhaps) anti-religious bigotry of Cook's statement. Since neither Eugene's post (nor Taranto's item, for that matter) suggested that anti-atheist bigotry didn't exist, what was the point of the "I know you are but what am I?" responses?