Scalzi Uncovers Christians at the ACLU

So, umm, did he ever get to 200? I didn't see that in the article. Apart from your contemptuous remark about sincere Christians who view some other Christians as not genuine (sort of like the ones on the other side who glibly refer to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as "frauds"), I only saw two mentioned specifically, and a vague reference to "numerous" of others. How many people work for the ACLU? Exactly how many self-proclaimed Christians finally came forward? Please finish the equation.

...In a country where more than two-thirds of the population describes itself as "Christian," (regardless of which ones you want to call the "frauds," the ACLU "Christians" or the Pat Robertson "Christians"), the presence of less than twenty self-described "Christians" in ANY nationwide organization is telling, no?

...I find it troubling (and so do many other people) that certain minority groups representing nearly 20% of the country's population often constitute only 1% or 2% of many national law firms or university law school faculty. Many educated, intelligent people believe this indicates some sort of system-wide bias. Wouldn't the same be true if a large, national (and supposedly religious-neutral) organization had only 1 or 2% of its members culled from the ranks of the religious supermajority in the country?

... The ACLU head from Alabama should be taken with a grain of salt as well - and not because I am questioning his Christianity (but shouldn't his sincerity be fair game just as much as Jerry Falwell's?). The question is whether Alabama has enough secularists there to staff its ACLU outpost. If the ACLU runs a branch in a region where they really cannot find any non-Christians, then the presence of a Christian in their ranks there is really not as significant.

...Don't get me wrong. I don't think the ACLU is obligated to hire Christians, or to cater to Christian causes so that can recruit from their ranks. I respect the diversity of our country and think it is fine to have secularist groups of activist lawyers around. I appreciate the ACLU and its work in defending our civil liberties.

...But your article seemed like a cheap shot (as if all "real" Christians should now be obligated to endorse the ACLU because somebody found a few members who use that monicker), and unconvincing - what you left out spoke louder than what you included.

So, umm, did he ever get to 200? I didn't see that in the article.
Not that I know of, nor was he attempting to get to 200. He simply said that he would donate $50 to the first one and $1 for each one after that, up to a total of $200. I don't know how many actually contacted him, but it's one blog, and not a widely read one at that, so it would be absurd to expect that many to even notice the request. His point was not that he could find 200 Christian lawyers who work with the ACLU, but that there are Christian lawyers who do work for the ACLU. His friend had claimed that there were none and he was attempting to show otherwise.
Apart from your contemptuous remark about sincere Christians who view some other Christians as not genuine (sort of like the ones on the other side who glibly refer to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as "frauds"), I only saw two mentioned specifically, and a vague reference to "numerous" of others.
There are indeed a sizable group of Christians, likely including John's friend, who would sneer at the very idea that a Christian would work for the ACLU and take the position that if they work for the ACLU it could only mean that they're not "real" Christians. And yes, I am likely to be rather contemptuous of such people. I also claim rather boldly that both Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are frauds, but my remark to that effect was not merely glib and offhanded. I'm fully prepared to defend it and give numerous examples that justify that conclusion.
In a country where more than two-thirds of the population describes itself as "Christian," (regardless of which ones you want to call the "frauds," the ACLU "Christians" or the Pat Robertson "Christians"), the presence of less than twenty self-described "Christians" in ANY nationwide organization is telling, no?
First, it has not been established that there are "less than twenty" Christians involved with the ACLU. The evidence at this point merely indicates that less than twenty of them read John Scalzi's blog and took the time to respond. Given that John's blog likely has no more than a few hundred readers, it would be silly to presume that the response he gets is anything more than a mere fraction of the actual number.
Second, even if the premise was true, it might be "telling" of any number of things. It certainly need not indicate that the ACLU is therefore "anti-Christian". In fact, given the enormous amount of propaganda thrown at the ACLU by prominant and influential Christian organizations (like Robertson's and Falwell's), propaganda that is entirely unjustified by the facts, it could merely indicate that those Christians lawyers who choose not to work with the ACLU have bought into the inaccurate portrayal of the ACLU's actions that they are so often bombarded with. I'm sure neither one is the total answer, as people act or don't act for a variety of reasons. I'm sure there are many Christian attorneys who genuinely disagree with even the non-caricatured activities of the ACLU because they advocate an accomodationist or even theocratic position on church and state matters; in fact, I know several attorneys who would fit that description. Either way, my point is that even if your premise was true, there are many things it might "indicate", many of them true in particular situations.
The ACLU head from Alabama should be taken with a grain of salt as well - and not because I am questioning his Christianity (but shouldn't his sincerity be fair game just as much as Jerry Falwell's?). The question is whether Alabama has enough secularists there to staff its ACLU outpost. If the ACLU runs a branch in a region where they really cannot find any non-Christians, then the presence of a Christian in their ranks there is really not as significant.
This strikes me as a rather silly argument, for several reasons. First, because it appears to contrast "Christians" with "secularists", and in the context of the church/state issues that the ACLU often deals with (and for which the ACLU is so often pilloried without justification by the Christian Right) one can be both a Christian and a secularist (secularist in the sense of wanting an entirely neutral and secular government that stays out of all such questions and leaves religious matters to each individual to decide for themselves). Despite the oft-repeated rhetoric from the Falwells and Robertsons of the world, church/state separation is not merely a question of Christians vs. non-Christians, and it never has been. Many of the staunchest defenders of strict separation have been Christians (among the founders, look at John Leland and Isaac Backus, for example) and that remains true today (Barry Lynn is a good example).
Secondly, the executive director of a state ACLU chapter is a major and important position in the organization. Your wording implies that you actually think the ACLU looks around for non-Christians and, if they can't find one, has to "settle" for a Christian. That seems a rather presumptuous and unjustified implication given that the ACLU's goals have nothing to do with the religious faith of their leaders.
But your article seemed like a cheap shot (as if all "real" Christians should now be obligated to endorse the ACLU because somebody found a few members who use that monicker), and unconvincing - what you left out spoke louder than what you included.
I neither said nor implied that all "real" Christians should now be obligated to endorse the ACLU because there are Christians who work with the ACLU. In fact, I nowhere said anything about what I would view as "real" Christians or "unreal" Christians (my only mention of it was in repeating what many Christians would say when confronted with their existence given their skewed vision of the ACLU's goals). My position, in fact, would simply be that all rational and fair-minded people, whether Christian or non-Christian (and there are plenty of people in both those groups that do not qualify as rational and fair-minded), should represent the work of the ACLU fairly and rationally and form conclusions about it based upon a realistic assessment of the totality of the work they do.
This would be in opposition to the sort of demagoguery that is constantly thrown at the ACLU from the various organs of the Christian Right in this country, and if you want examples of that I could list them from now until I reach retirement age. All you have to do is watch Pat Robertson on the 700 Club crowing about the Lamb's Chapel decision and how it was a "great victory over the secularists in the ACLU", without bothering to mention that the ACLU was on the same side in that case and had filed a brief on behalf of Lamb's Chapel. That's a lie, and it is a lie calculated to give a false portrayal of the ACLU's position. And it's done as much for financial reasons as it is for ideological reasons, as it is an enormous part of the ACLJ's fundraising pitch that if you send them money, they will battle bravely against the heathen ACLU and vanquish them. An accurate portrayal of the totality of the ACLU's legal work would damage the simple little black and white fairy tale upon which so much of their fundraising is based, so distortion is the preferred strategy.
If you (not you specifically) disagree with the ACLU because you think an accomodationist or theocratic position on church and state is better justified, then that is at least an honest disagreement. If you want to argue that the ACLU sometimes gets nitpicky over things they shouldn't be concerned about, like the tiny cross on the LA county seal, I'll agree with you without reservation. But if you want to make the claim that the ACLU just hates Christians and wants to stamp out Christianity or destroy it (a popular and often repeated claim in the right wing press), then you are engaging in an absurd and hyperbolic overreaction that is simply not justified by the facts. And the kind of rhetoric thrown at the ACLU by the likes of Joseph Farah of the Worldnutdaily, who outright calls the ACLU terrorists, or Bill O'Reilly, who calls them the most dangerous organization in America, crosses over from mere dishonesty and demagoguery into the territory of delusion and hysteria.
I should also add, by the way, that most attorneys don't work for the ACLU. Most of the ACLU's legal work is done by attorneys and law firms in private practice who do pro bono work on the side. Sometimes those attorneys end up getting paid by the other side after the lawsuit concludes, since the law allows them to make a motion to be awarded legal fees by the other side in some cases; other times, they go uncompensated for the time they put in to the cases they take on the ACLU's behalf.

There aren't 200 Christian lawyers who work for Pat Robertson's legal group AND Kelly Shackleford's group combined. I'd gamble there are double the number of Christian lawyers working for the ACLU than those working for Christian rights groups.

And probably fewer than 10% of ACLU members are lawyers. There are thousands of Christians in the group.

As a Christian, I resent the insinuation that none of us support the Constitution enough to join the ACLU.

Dru, your cheap shot is noted.