If there's a debate, there's two sides. And when we have to remind of the Enlightenment thinking, means simply that it's then questioned or forgotten by others.

But Western culture is founded on Greek and Roman culture. It's difficult to argue anything else. Especially after the Renaissance, this heritage was found universally even in parts of Europe that never were part of the Roman Empire. And Christianity blended in perfectly to the Roman Empire, both in the West and also in the East, actually. The last remnant of the Roman Empire might well be the Pope, even if the ecumenical patriach of Constantinople is also still around.

Did you watch that recent Maher video I posted a few posts up?

Yes, did you notice that he was arguing about many people?

But Western culture is founded on Greek and Roman culture. It's difficult to argue anything else. Especially after the Renaissance, this heritage was found universally even in parts of Europe that never were part of the Roman Empire. And Christianity blended in perfectly to the Roman Empire, both in the West and also in the East, actually. The last remnant of the Roman Empire might well be the Pope, even if the ecumenical patriach of Constantinople is also still around. — ssu

Several historians have argued that Christianity played a large role in bringing down the Roman Empire through fostering a nobility/aristocracy class of wide-eyed mystics. Jesus and the Jews are both enemies of the Romans, but imho Jesus/Christianity is more effective at bringing down the Empire than any Jewish military revolt. I would say western culture comes down some mix of Enlightenment ideas with religious Judeo-Christian ones. But yes I understand how the Romans used Christianity for their own means. IMHO as best as they tried to control it, Christianity ultimately led to their downfall as their value system (the one which helped with their rise and success) was replaced with another. The Empire couldn't stomach Jesus. :rofl:

I think the interesting question is just how Western actually Jewish culture is. Because the foundations of that culture are in the Orient, yet the diaspora having been so long in Europe, it's quite Western. And the Jewish have contributed a huge deal to what is now called Western culture. And also the real question is, just how universal was Roman culture in the Roman Empire? For example North Africa is quite different from Sub-Saharan Africa and there too the Roman empire has had it's influence.

Yes, did you notice that he was arguing about many people? — ssu

In what sense? I guess what I mean is that at least in that video, the point was that Western Civilization, since the time of the Enlightenment, at least in America, has revolved around a separation of church and state (the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment), and not about establishing a religion.

I will say though, as a historical aside, Maher tried to use the Pilgrims to his point but they can also be used contra his point. Yes, the Pilgrims were a type of Puritanism (Calvinist and Reformed), that wanted to escape the dominance of the Anglican Church (High Church), but when they came to America, it wasn't like when they established their settlement in Plymouth, that it was some bastion of tolerance. Once they were settled and not killed off by the Wampanoag and the harsh New England climate, and once they were taught how to grow crops properly... They established a brutally restrictive government, governed completely by their brand of Puritan Church (which ironically has over time become the Congregationalist Church which has a large extremely liberal mainline Protestant faction that even led to some churches adopting Unitarian beliefs by the time of Emerson and Thoreau in the 1800s).

They were so restrictive, Rhode Island was basically founded by Roger Williams as a place for religious tolerance (which is why a group of Sephardic Jews formed their Tauro synagogue early on there). So you can thank more Roger Williams and not the Pilgrims for the very beginning of that pluralism...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams

Of course, slightly later you had the developments of William Penn's colony (Pennsylvania) and the religiously tolerant Philadelphia (which harbored the Quakers). Don't forget too, Maryland founded in the name of Lord Baltimore who was a Catholic and became a Catholic haven.. And thus the beginning of the pluralistic religious society in America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Calvert,_2nd_Baron_Baltimore

But Western culture is founded on Greek and Roman culture. It's difficult to argue anything else. Especially after the Renaissance, this heritage was found universally even in parts of Europe that never were part of the Roman Empire. And Christianity blended in perfectly to the Roman Empire, both in the West and also in the East, actually. The last remnant of the Roman Empire might well be the Pope, even if the ecumenical patriach of Constantinople is also still around. — ssu

How cool would have it been if Finland retained its Finno-Ugric religion.? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_paganism The Slavs had their Slavic religion? The Celts had their Celtic religion, and the Germanics had their Germanic religion (and all the variations thereof)? Instead, the unifying ideology became a useful tool of Rome, and then various kings and Church leaders in the Middle Ages. Yes, it can be argued that it was the Latin/Greek monasteries and early universities preserved the pagan philosophical writings (along with Arabic and Persian philosophers when that was tolerated in the Islamic Golden Age), but that wouldn't have been necessary if the Church did not systematically destroyed the Greco-Roman philosophical schools (last one was forced to shut down in 529 CE in Athens). And if Christianity wasn't so good at converting tribal kings to the religion (thus converting their populations), there could have been a much more interesting mosaic of European and Western pagan traditions. I believe it was the Lithuanians who held out the latest; their population didn't convert until the 1300s! That's even later than the Vikings (and Finns) in the 1100s!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Lithuania

Is this another episode of Yankees pretending they are European, when they are the most African country outside of Africa and a few Caribbean islands, and the most Jewish country outside of Israel?
I don't see anything European there, I only see another iteration of when Haitians killed all the French colonists and started wearing their clothes.
Yes, the "West" is Canada, Burgerland, and maybe Australia. But let's not pretend those are European.

Is this another episode of Yankees pretending they are European, when they are the most African nation outside of Africa and a few Caribbean islands, and the most Jewish nation outside of Israel?
I don't see anything European there, I only see another iteration of when Haitians killed all the French colonists and started wearing their clothes. — Lionino

Indeed, when we say "Western" what does that mean? I take it to mean a thread of history running from the Greco-Romans (as pointed out), running through Christendom in the Middle Ages (by way of preservation of these writings and carrying on in the format in a diminished fashion), with a sort of "rebirth" in the Renaissance/Scientific Revolution of Aristotle (with renewed ways for empirical observation combined with mathematical predictions such as Descartes/Galileo/Bacon and sans Aristotle's teleological science), Neoplatonism, in the 1400s-1600s, and carried forth socially and politically with the various religious and political revolutions of the 1600s-1700s (aka the Enlightenment with hearkening to Greco-Roman democratic ideas, more analytically studied as separation of powers, infused with ideas like "common law" and precedent in law, things like this, and religious pluralism, rights theory, scientific mindset to laws of nature, industry and technology, and secularism).

Now interestingly enough, another strain, that of cultural relativism, and opening up to new ways of living (communal societies, libertinism..) also was a part of this tradition. Some of it was influenced by cultural diffusion with various other cultures that were contacted (and then colonized) during this period. And certainly, American culture is an amalgamation of ideas not only from Europe, but cultural practices and traditions stemming from Native Americans and Africa as well. No doubt there is a certain idiosyncrasy to American version of "the West" that is not shared in Europe. But much of the structure and backbone is fully a continuation of the Western tradition with various cultural infusions from non-Western colonized cultures such as food, music, knowledge in farming practices, language, place names, etc.

And not sure the point of pointing out largest Jewish community as again @ssu pointed out:

I think the interesting question is just how Western actually Jewish culture is. Because the foundations of that culture are in the Orient, yet the diaspora having been so long in Europe, it's quite Western. And the Jewish have contributed a huge deal to what is now called Western culture. And also the real question is, just how universal was Roman culture in the Roman Empire? For example North Africa is quite different from Sub-Saharan Africa and there too the Roman empire has had it's influence. — ssu

Added more.

Well, you had witch burnings in the American colonies, hence we always have to look at a historical era as an unique time in history and not try to compare it with today.

How cool would have it been if Finland retained its Finno-Ugric religion.? — schopenhauer1

Very uncool, I'd say. A disaster for the people in my view.

We would have been attacked by crusaders well into the Renaissance, I guess. And afterwards we would have been second rate people. Good luck then trying to make those crucial trade links to Europe when you aren't a Christian, not even Orthodox. There are some Finno-Ugric people that still have still few pagans in Russia, like the Mari. Well, just like other Finno-Ugric people in Russia, they don't have much else than barely retaining their old language and customs and the 'Russification' of these people is obvious and in plain sight.



Christians aren't the nicest people towards especially those who they see as pagans.

Yes, Lithuanians held out for the longest, and had to fight the crusaders in the form of the Teutonic Knights. In the end this left in the Baltic States a German elite which was detached from the local populace. And this hindered social cohesion in the Baltic states even in the start of the 20th Century.

And if Christianity wasn't so good at converting tribal kings to the religion (thus converting their populations), there could have been a much more interesting mosaic of European and Western pagan traditions. — schopenhauer1

Much more reasons for having religious wars also! The first example that comes to my mind is how an 'interesting mosaic' Lebanon is with it's various religions and people. Beautiful country with not-so beautiful history.

Yet indeed an 'interesting mosaic'.

Christianity ultimately led to their downfall as their value system (the one which helped with their rise and success) was replaced with another. The Empire couldn't stomach Jesus. :rofl: — BitconnectCarlos

I think the Roman empire was doomed long before the Christian religion became dominant. Really what's interesting is not that it fell, but how long it took. It simply was not viable given larger population dynamics.

I take it to mean a thread of history running from the Greco-Romans (as ↪ssu pointed out), running through Christendom in the Middle Ages (by way of preservation of these writings and carrying on in the format in a diminished fashion), with a sort of "rebirth" in the Renaissance/Scientific Revolution — schopenhauer1

That honestly sounds pretty off to me. The Christian heritage in western culture is huge. The enlightenment was not a rediscovery of ancient wisdom, it's heavily influenced by Christian theology of the middle ages. It is also quite possibly influenced by experience with the American peoples, whose often specifically anti-authoritarian political arrangements may have given Europeans a few ideas.

The separation of church and state, specifically, likely has it's precursor in the christian concept of "religion" as something distinct from the rest of your tribal / family identity (which is not at all a given). And also, of course, goes back to the special role of the catholic church as a supranational organisation.

Very uncool, I'd say. A disaster for the people in my view.

We would have been attacked by crusaders well into the Renaissance, I guess. And afterwards we would have been second rate people. Good luck then trying to make those crucial trade links to Europe when you aren't a Christian, not even Orthodox. There are some Finno-Ugric people that still have still few pagans in Russia, like the Mari. Well, just like other Finno-Ugric people in Russia, they don't have much else than barely retaining their old language and customs and the 'Russification' of these people is obvious and in plain sight. — ssu

Wow, cool video! Yeah, I am pro-pagan generally, so I'm glad to see one small pocket still retains the pre-Christian traditions/beliefs!

Indeed, what would you say was the biggest factor for populations to convert to Catholic or Orthodox versions)? In other words:

1) What was the process (kings/leaders first then their populous or one-by-one?)?
2) What was the reason for it? (the ability to trade with Christians? they really "believed" in what the missionaries were selling? It created ties with other powerful kingdoms?

But I disagree with you here:

Much more reasons for having religious wars also! The first example that comes to my mind is how an 'interesting mosaic' Lebanon is with it's various religions and people. Beautiful country with not-so beautiful history.

Yet indeed an 'interesting mosaic'. — ssu

It is precisely because those religions in Lebanon are monotheistic (and by this I mean mainly Christian and Islamic) that they have those problems. The way ancient Near Eastern and European paganism generally worked, it was MAINLY pluralistic, syncretic, and "live and let live". Actually, that is precisely why, Rome didn't really give a shit when they conquered a new peoples, what they necessarily believed unless it was actively hostile to Rome. As long as they acknowledged some Roman things (which most pagan religions didn't mind doing), they could carry on. There are always exceptions, but that was largely how ancient paganism worked. Religion was not so much an ideology. Arguably Zoroastrianism might have been the first where that became an issue, but that was contained to mainly Persia. But it wasn't until Christianity that you had the use of religion as ideology and "right belief" (especially in terms of a multi-ethnic region tied together by proximity, trade, and history) as part of the power structure. Notice I said "right belief" not just religion! Religion has always been part-and-parcel of various power structures since Neolithic man!

That honestly sounds pretty off to me. The Christian heritage in western culture is huge. The enlightenment was not a rediscovery of ancient wisdom, it's heavily influenced by Christian theology of the middle ages. It is also quite possibly influenced by experience with the American peoples, whose often specifically anti-authoritarian political arrangements may have given Europeans a few ideas.

The separation of church and state, specifically, likely has it's precursor in the christian concept of "religion" as something distinct from the rest of your tribal / family identity (which is not at all a given). And also, of course, goes back to the special role of the catholic church as a supranational organisation. — Echarmion

Sure, I did not emphasize the "Christendom" part in the Middle Ages. It wasn't just a vessel for prior beliefs. Indeed, the various Celto-Germanic practices (Anglo-Saxon "common law" for example), and the supranational organization of the Church versus the state is no doubt a part of that tradition. It's arguable there was universalism in the Judeo-Christian belief system that contributed to it as well (universal rights, equality, etc.). But arguably, this has contributed to MORE division as peoples were seen as better (those who were converted) and those who were not (the heathens), which then leads the way for inequality.

But, it should also not be discounted that the Church suppressed pluralism, differences in belief, and many freedoms of thought, though it infused various other things. I mean, there were brutal killings and inquisitions and crusades, but at least they didn't have the Colosseum and a huge slave-system undergirding Christian societies (until colonialism). That was mainly the job of the peasants and serfs!

But, arguably, the fact that we even think about inequality as a problem is part of the Christian tradition. Greek and Roman pagans would not have considered inequality a problem in its own right. For them, people simply were not equal and that was just a normal fact of the world.

Christians certainly perpetrated inequality. But, for the christian elites, the teaching of Jesus would always be a nagging uncertainty.

Imho, one of the biggest success stories of western culture is that it turned the Christian "equality in the eyes of Christ" into a secular principle of human rights.

But, arguably, the fact that we even think about inequality as a problem is part of the Christian tradition. Greek and Roman pagans would not have considered inequality a problem in its own right. For them, people simply were not equal and that was just a normal fact of the world. — Echarmion

It's best not to paint too broad a picture as there was more pluralistic beliefs in ancient Greece...But yes, it was taken mainly as a matter of course that some deserved power based on birth or fate. At the same time, as far as beliefs, this didn't generally create the hierarchy as much as birth. However, this really still carried on in Christian thought in terms of the Middle Ages idea of a Great Chain of Being (God, Christ, Church, Kings, Vassals, Peasants). It can be argued it was rather, the notion of a middle class that got rid of this notion and the Protestant Reformation breaking away the Great Chain and handing it over to the congregants to figure out for themselves. This of course was driven in large extent to being able to read and the Gutenberg Press.

Imho, one of the biggest success stories of western culture is that it turned the Christian "equality in the eyes of Christ" into a secular principle of human rights. — Echarmion

Possibly. One can argue the Stoics started this notion of this but it was carried into Christendom with the idea of being united in Christ. It can have its place in Pauline setting of all that are initiated are the same etc. From SEP:

This is now the widely held conception of substantive, universal, moral equality. It developed among the Stoics, who emphasized the natural equality of all rational beings, and in early New Testament Christianity, which envisioned that all humans were equal before God, although this principle was not always adhered to in the later history of the church. This important idea was also taken up both in the Talmud and in Islam, where it was grounded in both Greek and Hebraic elements. In the modern period, starting in the seventeenth century, the dominant idea was of natural equality in the tradition of natural law and social contract theory. Hobbes (1651) postulated that in their natural condition, individuals possess equal rights, because over time they have the same capacity to do each other harm. Locke (1690) argued that all human beings have the same natural right to both (self-)ownership and freedom. Rousseau (1755) declared social inequality to be the result of a decline from the natural equality that characterized our harmonious state of nature, a decline catalyzed by the human urge for perfection, property and possessions (Dahrendorf 1962). For Rousseau (1755, 1762), the resulting inequality and rule of violence can only be overcome by binding individual subjectivity to a common civil existence and popular sovereignty. In Kant’s moral philosophy (1785), the categorical imperative formulates the equality postulate of universal human worth. His transcendental and philosophical reflections on autonomy and self-legislation lead to a recognition of the same freedom for all rational beings as the sole principle of human rights (Kant 1797, p. 230). Such Enlightenment ideas stimulated the great modern social movements and revolutions, and were taken up in modern constitutions and declarations of human rights. During the French Revolution, equality, along with freedom and fraternity, became a basis of the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen of 1789. — Equality

So based on this, it would have to be shown that Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau were explicitly pulling from those ideas, which I'm sure one can if they follow the thread to one extent or the other. A lot of it had to do with ideas of humans are equal in a "state of nature" more than Christian equality.

Added more.

It's best not to paint too broad a picture as there was more pluralistic beliefs in ancient Greece...But yes, it was taken mainly as a matter of course that some deserved power based on birth or fate. — schopenhauer1

True. There's always the danger of getting too enamoured with the big, sweeping narrative.

Also we can't really say that these ideas are necessarily unique to Christianity. It's always possible they'd have come up some other way regardless. But they are part of the historical sequence of ideas.

Also we can't really say that these ideas are necessarily unique to Christianity. — Echarmion

Don't most aspects of Western civilization predate Christianity in some near-Eastern traditions anyway?

Don't most aspects of Western civilization predate Christianity in some near-Eastern traditions anyway? — AmadeusD

Oh I'm sure that if you can find various aspects that predate it. That doesn't mean that their specific combination wasn't relevant though. I think it's plausible that the combination of the roman legalistic tradition with the anarchic undercurrent of Christianity made the western civilization more flexible.

Generally speaking, it makes sense to be wary of groups that try to establish religious speech through government (as many conservatives seem to want), as well as groups that if their policies came to fruition would limit the rights of others (Nazis, religious nationalists, supremacy groups, you name it). So, what do you do when you are protecting their right to speech, but their right to speech is advocating for the abolishment of everyone else's freedoms of speech or otherwise? — schopenhauer1

It is a tricky situation. I believe free speech goes hand in hand with the right to peaceful assembly. As long as the "peaceful" part is honored and obeyed, I see no reason why we shouldn't encourage free speech to the fullest extent. Obviously, any group that would use their freedom of speech to call for violence (qua "hate speech") should be flagged, monitored and dealt with appropriately. Barring such radicalism, there should be no restrictions on free speech, it is our best weapon against flatterers, liars, and charlatans.

As for establishing religious speech in government, I don’t see it as a problem, as long as the government doesn't appeal to some religious authority as a way to arbitrarily apply the law. I can totally agree with the religious speech like: "thou shalt not steal"...especially if it is codified into fair and impartial law. And not only that, all governments are insecure by default and need that lofty language in order to project that air of authority, and since all governments are about as creative as a sack of turds, what better source to copy from than religious doctrine.

Modern day Israel has assimilated western culture as much as western culture has assimilated judeo-christian ethics. However, western culture definitely does not have its birthplace in modern day Israel. You are right in tracing it to Rome, particularly starting with Constantine. It was in the Renaissance period that ancient greek philosophy really came back into style, and it fit like a glove on a culture in which the judeo-christian ethic was well established. That glove proved to have an acid lining that would slowly corrode the judeo-christian structure beneath it (subjects covered in Nietzsche's "death of god" and the work of a few other post-moderists). Needless to say, the glove of Liberal reason don't fit so well these days on Western Culture.

Well, I can agree and disagree with this very conservative account of things. — schopenhauer1

Freedom of speech has not traditionally been a particularly conservative issue. Indeed, it is very much a liberal issue.

I agree that organizations promoting free speech must be impartial, but we have to be careful what that means. In the US, the Supreme Court defines speech. They have defined things such as hate speech and "inciting speech", speech that causes a "clear and present danger". And those are there for a reason. — schopenhauer1

I don't think much care is required when we are talking about censoring books. The Supreme Court criteria for impermissible speech is incredibly stringent, such a shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater (beginning with Holmes' dissent in Schenck v. United States). The Court recently reaffirmed that hate speech is permitted (Matal v. Tam, 2017).

I agree that organizations promoting free speech must be impartial... — schopenhauer1

The difficulty here is that organizations promoting free speech should promote free speech. The reason the ACLU is making their new hires delete official tweets is because the tweets are opposing free speech.

That being said, the article is right in the fact that this can happen on the left as well as on the right. — schopenhauer1

I don't find your overtly political reading of the article a propos. It is not controversial that the ACLU should not censor speech. The ACLU readily admits this. I think the article is about the homogenization of leftist causes, even where this homogenization creates institutional incoherence (e.g. the ACLU); it is about the difference between rule of law and equality under the law; and finally it is about the trump card of fiduciary duties, which existed long before liberalism and communism. Andrews is basically saying, "The left is obviously content to snowplow liberalism out of the way, but we really should put our foot down when it comes to fiduciary duties."

I don't find your overtly political reading of the article a propos. — Leontiskos

I'm sorry, but that article did have a political bias and I was speaking to that from where my perspective was coming from. That whole online publication seems pretty conservative, so it makes sense it was a conservative article. Unless a story is literally about "This happened. We heard it from this. This is what was stated." most things are going to have a POV, no? Even those that are "factual" can be omitting, not provide the context, etc. So it gets tricky.

it is about the difference between rule of law and equality under the law; and finally it is about the trump card of fiduciary duties, which existed long before liberalism and communism. Andrews is basically saying, "The left is obviously content to snowplow liberalism out of the way, but we really should put our foot down when it comes to fiduciary duties." — Leontiskos

I actually don't think this at all contrary to what I eluded to here:

That being said, the article is right in the fact that this can happen on the left as well as on the right. The left can and does muzzle rightwing ideas, calling for their being cancelled, disbarred, fired, or pilloried. It silences the other side with a de facto point of view, much like, as Helen Andrews points out, the Communists used to do in the Eastern Bloc. This is certainly seen in academia where guest speakers are heckled and not allowed to speak. The administration often doesn't punish these students and some might promote it. They don't allow for decorum and respect for the rights of guests to make their case. They don't wait to the end for the question and answer session. They often make it so hard to get a guest speaker they have to cancel their even coming onto campus. There are "trigger warnings" and such for supposedly college-level students! If college campuses cannot be a place for full-throated diversity of opinions, then there is something certainly wrong. Surely, they can give roughly equal time to all sorts of points of views to expose students to the realm of ideas. It should also teach people to tolerate differences of opinion respectfully. — schopenhauer1

Clearly, the rightwing views have a duty to be represented in court just as much as leftwing and vice versa. Every view should be represented fairly by their lawyer. The ACLU indeed used to be famous for taking all sides in the name of free speech.

My broader point was, what if the speech you are representing is trying to silence the other points of view in the name of X (religion, tradition, hate, etc.)? That is a tricky one to defend, no? But one can argue that no matter what the speech, as long as they are not physically restricting other people, then it is permitted. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church and their despicable way they protest at funerals of dead soldiers. That is protected speech, if they are respecting the privacy of the funeral, but they can be pretty close if I am recalling the case correctly. So yeah, the First Amendment protects your right to be an asshole in whatever shape that takes.

That whole online publication seems pretty conservative, so it makes sense it was a conservative article. — schopenhauer1

I think a close read would disabuse this stereotype. It is a conservative article, but not in the way you seem to imagine.

I actually don't think this at all contrary to what I eluded to here — schopenhauer1

True, but her point isn't so much that the left should be liberal, but rather that the ACLU should not infringe civil liberties. It's a tighter and less partisan argument. She is more or less conceding that the left need not be liberal. The whole conclusion is, "Even if the left wants to abandon liberalism, it should not abandon fiduciary duties."

My broader point was, what if the speech you are representing is trying to silence the other points of view in the name of X (religion, tradition, hate, etc.)? That is a tricky one to defend, no? — schopenhauer1

I think our approach is summed up in the adage, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If the ACLU examples in question were dealing with conflicting civil liberties, then I think this question would be more relevant. The Westboro example would then be more appropriate.

For example, I could write a book that argues for a change to the first amendment, restricting all ballerinas' rights to free speech. The book is protected by the first amendment. It is not legally tricky.

The book is protected by the first amendment. It is not legally tricky. — Leontiskos

That may be legally tricky actually depending on the modes of enforcement your book called for.

True, but her point isn't so much that the left should be liberal, but rather that the ACLU should not infringe civil liberties. It's a tighter and less partisan argument. She is more or less conceding that the left need not be liberal. The whole conclusion is, "Even if the left wants to abandon liberalism, it should not abandon fiduciary duties." — Leontiskos

I get it. I'm on board with that, but I think we have to look at it as a series what we mean by "abandon fiduciary duties".

If we mean
1) A specific lawyer is doing things like dropping their clients or misrepresenting them in court intentionally, then this is an obvious flagrant violation of fiduciary duties.

2) An organization chooses to no longer represent "free speech" on all sides that used to do that. Less egregious, but agreed that it is troublesome that it has shifted to only taking on leftist causes and not ANY speech, free or otherwise. But technically, if it is not part of the government, it can decide to change policy. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is more about how the organization is deciding to take on cases at that point, which oddly enough, is their "right" to do.

I can technically have a society called "Free Speech society" and have it be a clever name that seems to indicate free speech for all sides, but really only mean when it comes to agreeing with my points of view. That is misleading, but not necessarily unlawful.

For example, I could write a book that argues for a change to the first amendment, restricting all ballerinas' rights to free speech. The book is protected by the first amendment. It is not legally tricky. — Leontiskos

Indeed, correct. I guess I mean problematic at what degree it reaches. At what point is it actually affecting other people's rights? I would say at the point that judges actually take those positions and agree with it and make it part of the common law in which case hopefully it could be appealed and overturned. Also, if the people are inciting physical overturning, or a mob to imminently do so, this is also problematic as inciting speech is not protected.

I get it. I'm on board with that, but I think we have to look at it as a series what we mean by "abandon fiduciary duties".

If we mean
1) A specific lawyer is doing things like dropping their clients or misrepresenting them in court intentionally, then this is an obvious flagrant violation of fiduciary duties.

2) An organization chooses to no longer represent "free speech" on all sides that used to do that. Less egregious, but agreed that it is troublesome that it has shifted to only taking on leftist causes and not ANY speech, free or otherwise. But technically, if it is not part of the government, it can decide to change policy. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is more about how the organization is deciding to take on cases at that point, which oddly enough, is their "right" to do. — schopenhauer1

I'd say she means (1). The argument she makes pertains to expertise, vulnerably entrusting yourself to an expert in a sphere in which you have extremely limited knowledge. She gives the examples of doctors, lawyers, etc.

Indeed, correct. I guess I mean problematic at what degree it reaches. At what point is it actually affecting other people's rights? I would say at the point that judges actually take those positions and agree with it and make it part of the common law in which case hopefully it could be appealed and overturned. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but at this point you have moved from considering legal rights to considering natural rights, and it is here that legal precedent and even positive law itself becomes less relevant. That's a much larger conversation.

But thanks for reading. I kept forgetting to post it, so it is inevitably belated. Oh well!

That may be legally tricky actually depending on the modes of enforcement your book called for. — AmadeusD

I don't think so. Not after Holmes' dissent in Abrams won the day.

I'd say she means (1). The argument she makes pertains to expertise, entrusting yourself to an expert in a sphere in which you have extremely limited knowledge. She gives the examples of doctors, lawyers, etc. — Leontiskos

I don't have the article right in front of me. Did she cite specific examples of that happening with the ACLU? I think she did, but I can't remember the details. I believe someone was dropped, right? It seemed to me the article was more lamenting what the ACLU used to be about mid-century. But I do remember her explaining the fiduciary argument. I just don't remember the egregious examples, other than the organization has become generally taken over by the "woke" politics that many academic/legal institutions have become with quotes like this:

The ACLU once stood against this development. The national organization used to consider racial discrimination and “reverse discrimination” equally illegal. The New York Civil Liberties Union opposed racial quotas for seats on Mayor John Lindsay’s proposed police review board in 1966. Then, in 1971, the ACLU dropped its opposition to reverse discrimination. It endorsed left-wing theories of disparate impact, and its South Carolina affiliate even sued to have the state bar exam invalidated as unconstitutional because not enough black lawyers were passing it. Now, with its LGBTQ activism, the ACLU is on the front lines of pushing this type of law further. — Helen Andrews

Liberalism says that everything the state touches must be neutral in every respect. Professional standards say something more modest: that certain actors have a duty to be neutral when acting in positions of trust. The standard legal ethics textbook states, “A lawyer is a fiduciary, that is, a person to whom another person’s affairs are entrusted in circumstances that often make it difficult or undesirable for that other person to supervise closely the performance of the fiduciary. Assurances of the lawyer’s competence, diligence, and loyalty are therefore vital.”

The one instance she provided of (1) seems to have been here:

Wokeness is hostile to this ethos. In 2011, when the Defense of Marriage Act was being challenged in the courts, pressure from gay activists forced the law firm King & Spalding to drop its defense of the law. The partner who wanted to continue defending DOMA, Paul Clement, was forced to leave the firm and provide this defense independently. “Representation should not be abandoned because the client’s legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters,” Clement said in his resignation statement. This would once have been an uncontroversial expression of one of the most basic principles of our adversarial system, that every client deserves representation.