Thursday, September 17, 2009

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 12 — Judge chickens out, gives school personnel carte blanche to lead prayers

What a fucking joke. There might as well not even have been a preliminary injunction, let alone a consent decree.

About an hour and a half ago, U.S. District Court Judge Casey Rodgers let Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman off the hook, ruling that they didn't violate the judge's own preliminary injunction when they led a prayer at a school luncheon last January. I haven't read the decision yet, but based on the Pensacola News Journal's article reporting the not-guilty verdict, Judge Rodgers apparently rested her decision on the fact that Lay and Freeman didn't intend to violate the court order ... that their prayer was spontaneous or, as Lay put it, "out of reflex."

This outrageous ruling understandably delighted the crazed whackjob Christianists who had gathered around the courthouse today to protest the upholding of the U.S. Constitution ... or what I had predicted would be the upholding of the Constitution. Instead, they got what they wanted: meek submission by the supposedly-separate-from-the-church United States government before the "power of Almighty God." Well, congratulations to all you religious extremists -- you'll have all weekend to thump the shit out of your Bibles and herald the arrival of the Christianist theocracy you've so desperately desired for so long.

I predict that this decision is going to do nothing but encourage violations of the consent decree (PDF) now in force (which succeeded the injunction). Now if, say, a teacher or administrator leads a prayer at a meal or a game or even in class, they can just say it was "out of reflex." Oops! I prayed spontaneously -- sorry! It's a get-out-of-jail-and-into-church-free card, and it's a totally embarrassing ruling for Judge Rodgers and, ultimately, for the Constitution. I'm amazed that Judge Rodgers evidently felt she had to pander to the Christianists -- I mean, I understand why Jeff Miller panders, but the judge's job is for life. You don't have to face these whackjob voters, Judge! I mean, how the fuck do you accidentally pray?!

Here's the bottom line, as I see it: there is nothing in the consent decree with regard to intent when a prayer is given. The decree reads: "School officials are permanently enjoined from promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in, or causing Prayers during or in conjunction with School Events for any school" ... "School officials shall neither offer nor participate in a Prayer" ... "School officials shall not include Prayer ... during or in conjunction with a School Event" ... you get the idea. "Shall not include" or "shall [not] offer" doesn't say "shall not intentionally include." You do it, you're in violation, intentional or not. PERIOD. But that apparently is not what Judge Rodgers decided today.* And now the Christianists have more ammunition (pun intended) when they try to attack the constitutionality of the consent decree -- a step they've already said they plan to take.

So, go ahead, Christianists -- lead your prayers, thump your Bibles, and hang up your crosses in public school ... just remember that you have to do it "out of reflex" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Oh, and again, congratulations on your success in turning Pace (public) High School into Pace Christian High School. It's a shame that the non-Christian students in Pace -- and yes, there are some -- will have to attend school in an environment where their Constitutional right to avoid the establishment of religion is not just trampled upon, but completely ignored. And thus the Christian church and the state grow even less separated.

UPDATE (8:32 pm 9/17/09): Happy Constitution Day. Funny how it was born and died on the same date.

* I admit that I am making an assumption here, namely, that the injunction Lay and Freeman were acquitted of violating had the same or substantially the same language as the consent decree; that is, that intent was not addressed. I believe this is a reasonable assumption, though, as there would be no reason I can think of to state something like "shall not intentionally offer prayer" in the injunction but then leave "intentionally" out of the consent decree.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

<< Home