Talk:Thomas More Law Center

“The Thomas More Law Center is a Christian answer to the ACLU. They are fighting for our Christian faith in the courts, and they are winning.” Dr, D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries

www.thomasmore.org has the above quote on its front page. i assume they endorse the quote if they use it. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it. Can you be more specific about the location of the quote? --Jason Gastrich 19:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Aw i see the problem. It is below the tools box on the left. However, there are several quotes that cycle. There are about six quotes they use so just wait and you will see it there. However, I note on the google search there is no source for this quote other than the Thomas More site and a message board. i have no idea where or when Kennedy said this. But if the TMLC has it on its own web page it seems likely that they endorse the view. David D. (Talk) 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I see it, now. Thanks. Don't you think we should add Kennedy's name to the quote on the entry? To say the center characterizes itself this way isn't exactly correct. Kennedy characterizes the center this way. --Jason Gastrich 21:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine. Also it would be nice to find a primary source for the quote. i had a quick look but came up with nothing. David D. (Talk) 21:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Numerous publications use that quote without further attribution other than to the TMLC, and state that the TMLC characterizes itself that way. E.g. [1] and many others which come up just on a Google search for "christian answer to the ACLU". -EDM 22:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I still can’t find a source for Kennedy but here is the slam dunk quote. The Naples Daily news interviewed the co-founder of the Thomas More Law Center Richard Thompson, who was quoted as saying "We consider ourselves the Christian answer to the ACLU,"

Then consider these other three sources:

To The Source interviewed a representative of the The Thomas More Law Center who described the TMLC as the “Christian Answer to the ACLU.”.

An article in the Washington Times describes TMLC as “a Catholic answer to the ACLU”

The Boston Globe describes TMLC as calling itself "a Christian answer to the ACLU,"

There is no doubt that TMLC uses this quote to describe itself. They may have copied it from Kennedy but there is no need to quote Kennedy as they use to describe them selves. David D. (Talk) 22:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Thanks! --Jason Gastrich 23:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Conservative?

This organization never seems to have identified as having anything to do with conservatism. The editor who wants to keep the claim that it's a conservative organization is user:silly rabbit who does not have any source to his claim. Silly rabbit's justificaiton is "This is just completely untenable. Pro-life? Christianity's answer to the ACLU? I mean, really...", obviously he is just relying on his personal opinion and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Try Google sometime. If you have a problem with a claim, tag it as uncited. Summary removal of information which can be obviously sourced, and then edit warring looks like POV pushing. 30 seconds of Googling, and I found this:

• Alex Prud'homme (February 14, 1999). "Taking the Gospel to the Rich". The New York Times.:

“ He [Thomas S. Monaghan] also wants to promote his conservative agenda through Credo, a newspaper; WDEO, a radio station he owns, and the Thomas Moore Law Center, a new Catholic law firm supported by his Mater Christe Foundation. All are in Ann Arbor. ”

I'm sure many more sources can be provided. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Then provide them. Find a source from the Thomas More Law Center where they say that they are a conservative organization. Your opinion is not good enough. They deal with similiar issues to the ACLU, if you check the ACLU page, they are not placed in any conservative or liberal categories. Why don't you go to the ACLU page and add a conservative category? 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See [2] and [3] for starters. More can be found on Google, if you like. This group is pretty in-your-face conservative that the challenge you are raising is totally untenable. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit, couldn't the same argument be made that ACLU is just as liberal as this group is conservative? 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You can make that argument, but you'd be objectively wrong in doing so. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources you found could give reason to mention somewhere in the article that people have identified the Thomas More Law Center as being conservative, but you cannot be it in the first sentence or in the category because that is not what the Thomas More Law Center claims to be. If you put in the Thomas More Law Center in the intelligent design and conservative category, then you should also put the ACLU in the pedophilia and liberal category. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If by "people", you mean "every reliable source in existence", then yes: "Every reliable source in existence has identified the Thomas More Law Center as being conservative." In fact, I would go so far as to say that one would really need to be completely out of touch with reality to assert otherwise, or have no conception of the meaning of the word "conservative" within the United States. It is completely plain from the article and the advocacy positions taken by the center. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design advocate

Providing legal defense to intelligent design advocates does not make the Thomas More Law Center intelligent design advocates anymore then the ACLU is pedophilia advocates for providing legal defense to NAMBLA. The category should be removed. 99.150.113.218 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See Laurie Goldstein (November 4, 2005). "In Intelligent Design Case, a Cause in Search of a Lawsuit". The New York Times.. More references can be provided, but I think this one summarizes it quite nicely. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

Note to self and any others who are interested: this needs to be reorganized. Several of the same cases are cited twice in two sections, and we should give the outcomes of all cases. Too many of them just say the center sued or defended so-and-so, without saying what the result was. Tualha (Talk) 18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits Lost in History

I was browsing the recent changes this morning, and I noticed that Danpiedra had removed a number of characters from the article. Noticing the tag to be "Section Blanking," I promptly reverted it, and marked it as vandalism. When comparing my reversion to some of the edits by Danpiedra, I noticed a number of changes (or perhaps it wasn't the aforementioned user, someone should fact check for me) that were different between the two versions. I don't know where the other content either went or came from, but could someone clear this up for me? Legoland12342 (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Danpiedra: The section deleted referred to a former case handled by the The Thomas More Law Center. The deleted section refers the Law Center has having "gained notoriety" by its defense of intelligent design in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. However, the Law Center's most notable case is that of Jeffrey Chessani which I updated. Does this help? Perhaps, instead of deletion, we can reedit the section about Kitzmiller vs. DASD to place it among the other cases listed. Danpiedra (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Murray v. U.S. Treasury Sec. Timothy Geithner, et al.

The article claims that the DoJ's request that the case be dismissed was denied, but the exact opposite is true. It was dismissed by Judge Zatkoff. Even the TMLC's own website says so. [4] 75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)