The rights of minorities need protecting but the emphasis should be on protecting the rights of all Americans.

But there is only one group who were subject to three centuries of slavery followed by a century of disenfranchisement and state sponsored discrimination. The children of poor whites certainly have problems, but discrimination based on skin color isn't one of them, and the civil rights laws aren't really designed to address their needs. What they primarily need is access to health care and good educations. African-Americans still have to deal with racism; four decades of civil rights enforcement isn't enough time to erase four centuries of oppression.

Now if you'll agree that the DOJ should not have abandoned its traditional role of protecting the rights of minorities, I'll agree it can play a role in protecting 1st Amendment rights, and we can call it a day.

The rights of minorities need protecting but the emphasis should be on protecting the rights of all Americans. A better indicator of a need would be whether or not one is really disadvantaged. It is also more humane to afford an extra level of protection to poor children of severely dysfunctional families, even if they are white males, than to continue with the blanket minority concepts that do not distinguish between truly disadvantaged minority citizens and well off members of the same group.

There is no coincidence.

Progress! Now if you'll agree that the DOJ should not have abandoned its traditional role of protecting the rights of minorities, I'll agree it can play a role in protecting 1st Amendment rights, and we can call it a day.

I see, you're sticking with the amazing coincidence theory.

There is no coincidence. Civil rights cases on behalf of Christians have increased with time because the number of incidents has increased. Redress is long overdue. The separation clause either has been misunderstood by many state and local governments or deliberately used for illicit purposes. Challenge me on that if you like. There is plenty of pending and resolved litigation; most of it filed without DOJ assistance. You're stuck in an ideological mindset that refuses to look at the evidence in this regard. You are as ideologically motivated as the politicians you criticize. As for African-Americans, any violation of their rights needs redress. Redress however, should not be linked to ignoring the civil rights of other groups. On that you should agree.

If the evidence is there I'll look at it but that does not equate to validation of the original allegation of causally linking favoritism for Christianity with declining concern for African-Americans.

I see, you're sticking with the amazing coincidence theory.

I'm in favor of justice for all. You appear to be intent on divisiveness.

Nope, I'm just pointing out the obvious reality to anyone who doesn't have their head buried in the sand that Bush's DOJ made the conscious decision to quit filing civil rights cases on behalf of african-americans (mostly democrats), the people the laws were undeniably primarily designed to protect since they were the ones who had suffered a century of state sponsored discrimination after emancipation, to concentrate on representing christians (an important GOP constituency), who are a majority group never subjected to state sponsored discrimination.

Aagcobb:
I'm glad we can resume this conversation. The circumstantial evidence is pretty damning. Since 2001, when the Bush administration quit hiring experienced civil rights attorneys for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division in preference for graduates of Pat Robertson's Liberty University Law School, the DOJ has brought precisely one discrimination case on behalf of an african-american, while at the same time putting an emphasis on bringing cases on behalf of christians. Now according to you, it could just be an amazing coincidence that at the exact same time that the DOJ stopped hiring civil rights attorneys and started hiring graduates of the law school dedicated to making a critical role for the christian faith in our legal system, african-americans simply stopped filing discrimination claims while christians suddenly started suffering from discrimination.

You're having difficulty following a logical trail. There are good reasons for defending the right of people to practice their faith. It is a constitutional right every bit as valid as the right to vote. There is no valid reason for one engaged in the practice of law to oppose legal remedies for injustice. I would also point out that it is standard practice for chief executives to favor the hiring of those whose views accord with their own. Clinton, Carter and LBJ placed in office many whose perspectives were far to the left of the American center. Not a problem. It's a fact of life.

Voter disenfranchisement of African-Americans has steadily declined from the 60s when LBJ initiated laws designed to safeguard their right to vote. If the argument is that complaints have been neglected then make it and show the relevant evidence. If the evidence is there I'll look at it but that does not equate to validation of the original allegation of causally linking favoritism for Christianity with declining concern for African-Americans. As long as injustice exists remedies need to be pursued regardless of the identity of the victims. Many African-Americans are Christians too. I'm in favor of justice for all. You appear to be intent on divisiveness.

The point was addressed to the specific claim that pursuit of justice with regard to such allegations, as they relate to African-Americans in particular, was hindered by policies that favored Christians. That is an extended claim and the evidence must arise to the level of the claim itself.

I'm glad we can resume this conversation. The circumstantial evidence is pretty damning. Since 2001, when the Bush administration quit hiring experienced civil rights attorneys for the DOJ's Civil Rights Division in preference for graduates of Pat Robertson's Liberty University Law School, the DOJ has brought precisely one discrimination case on behalf of an african-american, while at the same time putting an emphasis on bringing cases on behalf of christians. Now according to you, it could just be an amazing coincidence that at the exact same time that the DOJ stopped hiring civil rights attorneys and started hiring graduates of the law school dedicated to making a critical role for the christian faith in our legal system, african-americans simply stopped filing discrimination claims while christians suddenly started suffering from discrimination. Now Bradford, do you really believe that, or are you just insisting that until I can prove it you are going to give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt?

Bilbo:
I agree that discussion should be taken elsewhere, but since Bradford asked about it, he could start here:

Bilbo, I'm responding to you here since rabbits indicate an open thread as I understand it. Check the horizon.

There will be allegations of voter fraud as long as votes occur. That was not the point of my questions. The point was addressed to the specific claim that pursuit of justice with regard to such allegations, as they relate to African-Americans in particular, was hindered by policies that favored Christians. That is an extended claim and the evidence must arise to the level of the claim itself. The claim is also tangentially related to the theme of TT itself in that anyone who spends a significant amount of time reading comments, will realize that some are motivated to opposition of ID, not based on scientific data, but rather due to their views of religion; most especially Christianity.