Here’s a question. Why is the Washington Post providing a platform for Jordan Sekulow, Director of Policy and International Operations for the American Center for Law and Justice?
Founded by Pat Robertson, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and its Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow quickly established themselves as key players in the right-wing movement, litigating a variety of cases at all levels, including the Supreme Court. The ACLJ has been particularly active in fighting marriage equality and defending the Pledge of Allegiance, while Sekulow has maintained very close ties to the Bush White House and played a central role in pushing for the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito.
It reminds me of Obama – listen to all points of view, invite everyone to the table, be even-handed to a fault, reach out to your enemies while abandoning your allies, model good behavior toward opponents and assume that they will do likewise. Right-wing newspapers and magazines don’t give left-wing commentators a platform, so why do putatively liberal or centrist or at least reality-based newspapers and magazines give right-wing theocrats a platform? Are they thinking the right-wing theocrats will reciprocate? Has it escaped their attention that this never ever happens?
The ACLJ thinks and says that rights are “God-given.”
It also apparently has no women in important roles, at least not judging by that banner.
By focusing on U.S. constitutional law, European Union law and human rights law, the ACLJ and its affiliated organizations are dedicated to the concept that freedom and liberty are universal, God-given and inalienable rights that must be protected.
Universal and God-given – there’s a tension there. If “freedom and liberty” are God-given rights then they are rights as defined by “God” and that of course means defined by clerics. Clerics and their religions have particular, narrow, goddy concepts of “rights” which often in secular terms mean the opposite of “rights.” I don’t trust that clump of guys at that table to protect my rights. Far from it: I’m quite sure they want to take some of my rights away.
It’s very odd that the Washington Post feels obliged to help them with their work.
I doubt they do. It’s like the person who’s polite to you no matter how many dinner plates you break and keeps inviting you over for dinner saying ‘Oh no big deal.’ They want to seem above the pettiness and they want to seem reasonable which in their minds means being calm and middle of the road and ignoring the hundreds of dollars worth of broken china all over their floor.
They probably realize there’s no rhyme or reason behind what they’re printing but the need to appear reasonable to all parties is so great it trumps the obvious; that you shouldn’t publish gibberish.
Oh like that person. What person?! I don’t know any person who keeps inviting me for dinner no matter how badly I trash the place!
I think they do, at least in a minimal sense, because it’s impossible not to help campaigners with their work if you give them a platform. The WP is a media outlet – the people who run it can’t possibly be unaware that publishing a point of view is publishing a point of view. In other words they sort of do by definition.
No they haven’t. They’ve been active in defending a divisive and unnecessary addition to the Pledge of Allegiance but they could probably care less about the actual Pledge itself.
I think you are assuming that the Washington Post is “liberal” in any real way. (When has the Post met a war it did not enthusiastically cheerlead for, for example?)
I love Stop Me’s explanation of how “liberals” and the Democratic Party really works, as a pawl to the right wing ratchet.
http://www.smithbowen.net/linfame/stopme/chapter02.html
“The ACLJ has been particularly active in fighting marriage equality . . .”
Yup. They’ve been fighting marriage equality. Fortunately, marriage equality has been fighting back and winning. 🙂
Brian – nah – I was careful not to assume that (because I know it’s not) –
Right-wing newspapers and magazines don’t give left-wing commentators a platform, so why do putatively liberal or centrist or at least reality-based newspapers and magazines give right-wing theocrats a platform?
At best the WP is putatively liberal; at least it putatively has more respect for truth-telling than Fox. That’s all I assumed.
Please note the fact that Jason is the son of the founder of ACLJ, Jay Sekulow. Please note that he is a graduate of Regent U. law school, Pat Robertson’s outfit. Robertson funded ACLJ at it’s beginning. Jason got additional education at GWU and Georgetown, which takes off a little of the fundamentalist stink and gives him Beltway cred. Both Sekulows have radio gigs on Xstanist/RW hate radio and are on Fox bookers’ speed dial; Jr. additionally has a blog and column at the WP. IOW, we see yet another legacy hire of the rightwing noise machine who has been greased into a MSM revenue stream. This, my brothers and sisters, is why this country is dying.
Oh the son; I was thinking they were brothers. I thought I’d seen that somewhere. Thanks for the info.
Since the Supreme Court has defined a lot of the limits as far as government relation to religion, the ACLJ has mostly become a money-making machine for Jay Sekulow and his family, including Jordan. It’s basically run by Jay, his wife, son, and brother, and they spend donations on whatever they want. See Jay Sekulow’s Golden Ticket.