Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) — the legal activist organization founded in 1993 by “a band of TV preachers and right-wing radio ranters” which now constitutes the strong arm of what I call the Legal Right — is not taking the recent dismissal of a case they brought before the Idaho courts very well. The case sought to allow a charter school in that state to teach the Bible.
ADF is hopping mad and they’ve renewed an ongoing online spat with “gloating” Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU). ADF Senior Legal Counsel, David Cortman, goes all out in his bashing of both separation of church and state and AU in a recent post. “Organizations like AU have twisted the words and meaning of the Constitution to fit their own ideological agenda,” Cortman writes.
ADF was founded, according to their mission, as “a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.” You can read their “statement of faith” here. Their primary litigation objectives are to “protect” the sanctity of life, marriage and the family, and religious freedom. Over the years they have built a large stable of affiliated organizations and allies including Wallbuilders, Crusade for Christ, Family On The Family, Defense of Marriage Act Watch, Community Defense Council, The Heritage Foundation and a host of other organizations that comprise a who’s-who of conservative money and machinery.
Under the guise of “religious liberty” they have challenged advocates for equality and human rights in areas including marriage rights, health care (provider refusal laws or so-called “conscience clauses”) and education, as in the Idaho case.
Bob Boston writes at AU’s blog, demonstrating the tone of rancor that has developed between the two organizations, “You guys are so tiresome – and predictable. Repeat after me: ‘Legitimate instruction ABOUT religion, good (constitutional); sectarian indoctrination, bad (unconstitutional).’”

3 comments
Jason Burgett says:
May 27, 2010
You say you’re a “daily review of religion in the news and the news about religion. We’re not so much nonpartisan as polypartisan — interested in all sides, disdainful of dualistic arguments, and enamored of free speech as a first principle…”
But this article features: “Guise of ‘religious liberty’” ; rose-colored view of “advocates for equality” ; “so-called” conscience clauses? ; “money and machinery” are only bad if they’re religiously conservative, perhaps?
Seems like you guys are missing the mark on your mission description.
ann says:
May 28, 2010
Legislating (or working to legislate) the prevailing, contemporary doctrine of one privileged faith stymies the religious liberty of all, don’t you agree? By that egalitarian standard, I think we’re right on our mission. Thanks so much for writing though, Jason.
Jason Burgett says:
Jun 2, 2010
Affirming a statement of faith is not the same thing as establishing a national church or an official religion. Working to insure that Christians are free, in the public square, to engage in public debate without sacrificing their commitments is, in my mind, wholly American and wholly consistent with the attitude that such freedoms belong to men and women of other faiths, as well. I’ve never sent a dime to ADF, and won’t, but I don’t think they’re against religious liberty for non-Christians.