I am glad to know that Barry and his boys over at (some) Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) are on our mailing list and read my updates. Someone forwarded me a blog post by Rob Boston at AU. They are attacking our July issue of Washington Watch, where we outline the growing threat to Christian speech and the intolerance of groups like the ACLU.
In particular, they claim my report of what is happening in my home state of Louisiana with the Tangipahoa school board was a distortion of the facts because we said the ACLU wanted Christians jailed for praying. A distortion? Oh really? The Times-Picayune, the New Orleans newspaper, reported on the incident in the April 6, 2005 edition. The ACLU suits against Tangipahoa are almost too numerous to count, however, the one in question was where a non-school employee opened a high school base ball game in prayer that ended with "in Jesus name." An unnamed father [puppet of the ACLU] complained and according to the last line in the Picayune story "the father asked the ACLU to file a motion for criminal contempt, which carries the threat of jail time and fines" which the ACLU was eager to comply with.
Unfortunately, for the (some) Americans United, I know the Louisiana situation very well. For instance, the federal judge that is handling this case is the former head of the state chapter of the ACLU and she used to lobby the state legislature for all kinds of left wing ideas. And then there is Joe Cook, the executive director of the ACLU that initiated this case. (Cook recently retired so they are without an executive director at present, but they are praying they find a replacement) When Cook was asked about the school board's efforts to pray before their meetings, Cook compared the praying Christians to Islamic terrorists when he said: “They believe that they answer to a higher power, in my opinion. Which is the kind of thinking that you had with the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country, and the people who did the kind of things in London.”
For more information, read my op/ed about the case that was published in the Shreveport Times.
Comments (7)
I visit this blog from time to time and am intrigued by the paucity of comments you get. DailyKos this blog is not, so far as reader involvement goes.
July 26, 2007 1:14 PM | Comment Permalink
The point of criticism by the ACLU and AU is that public prayer at government sponsored events is inappropriate (that is, WRONG).
Our first freedom -- that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- is a guarantee against government sponsored religion.
You may disagree, but that is the supreme law of the land. And I and others have a right not to be molested by the prayers that you suggest be permitted.
Bob Ritter
Founder,
Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty
July 26, 2007 3:01 PM | Comment Permalink
To Bob Ritter, you certainly do have a right. Don't attend. Seriously though - I love it when church/state separation crowd how always forget to include the free exercise clause when they bring up our first freedom. "and Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The establishment clause in context was about Congress (this didn't apply to the states) establishing a "Church of the United States", it had nothing to do with prayer during public gatherings - which historically you can see happened and still happens today.
July 26, 2007 3:36 PM | Comment Permalink
To Shane, one of the duties of the judicial branch is to determine how the Consitution applies to circumstances not in existence when the Constitution was written. Take the Second amendment as an example. When it was written, the framers' understanding of “arms” was limited to muskets, flintlock pistols, cannon, and other weapons of the late 18th century. Does the Consitution only protect these weapons? No- the principle underlying this amendment has resulted in decisions determining the extent to which individuals may own weapons of various types. Similarly, the principle underlying the “establishment” of a religion has been applied to various types of governmental activities that the Framers did not contemplate.
There were no public school systems when the First Amendment was adopted. When public schools came along, and when the country grew to include persons of many faiths and persons of no faith, and when the 14th amendment expanded the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, questions arose as to whether using public school-sponsored events as a platform for religious expression was an “establishment of religion.”
What I find offensive about Mr. Perkins' post is the assumption that the father who raised this issue was a "puppet of the ACLU." Is it so hard to believe that a parent might actually disagree with you? Moreover, in reading the op-ed to which the post was linked, Mr. Perkins complained about plaintiffs being awarded legal fees for "any small legal victory." The small legal victories here are violations of individual rights by state and local governments. The ability to seek redress of such grievances should not be limited to only those who can afford to pay attorney's fees.
July 26, 2007 4:47 PM | Comment Permalink
I just watched and listened to Perkins on Tucker. First, I think Fred Thompson has as much right, based on qualifications, to be president of the United States as, say, Mickey Mouse. Secondly, Perkins deft skirting of Thompson's proven law practice of advocating for pro-choice rights, then flat out LYING about it, is shameful. We expect bullcrap from politicians who do nothing outstanding in their careers, but to have a so-called leader and proponent of Christian values (who gets paid for this) essentially lie by deception is reprehensible. Perkins is a worthy successor and ballyhoo artest to the principles of a genuine slimeball, Gary Bauer. Oh, one other small item, did Thompson defend the murderer Aristide or not?
July 26, 2007 6:56 PM | Comment Permalink
"To Bob Ritter, you certainly do have a right. Don't attend. Seriously though - I love it when church/state separation crowd how always forget to include the free exercise clause when they bring up our first freedom. "and Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The establishment clause in context was about Congress (this didn't apply to the states) establishing a "Church of the United States", it had nothing to do with prayer during public gatherings - which historically you can see happened and still happens today"
What I love about the anti-church/state separation crowd is that they never address the fact that the reason the separation was put into place by the Founders was to protect religion from being corrupted by the pursuit of political power, rather than being so worried that politics might be corrupted by religion. And what the Founders worried about has come to pass.
What are the major Christian political groups primarily known for in this generation? Lets see, how about supporting a regime that has introduced torture as an American standard for treating prisoners. For withdrawing from the morally upright standards of humane treatment outlined in the Geneva conventions. For throwing people into secret prisons without warrant or trial indefinitely without hope of appeal.
Over the last 8 years I've watched the majority of Christians in my country make a choice about whether to follow Jesus or George Bush and the pursuit of political power. And unfortunately the big J has lost out in their hearts to crass earthly gain. And FRC continues to play its part in this corruption and moral decay of Christianity in the United States today.
July 26, 2007 7:53 PM | Comment Permalink
Jesus is a common name. Are you saying you can be sued for using that name. What a ridiculous waste of money.
August 15, 2007 4:18 PM | Comment Permalink