Pace: the final frontier, chapter 13 — The show goes on

Sorry, folks. I guess I kind of took the weekend off. It was inadvertent, though, so it's okay -- per the lesson we learned on Thursday in federal court in Pensacola: everything's okay so long as it's accidental. But I digress ....

Fresh off their stunning (and, to my mind, legally questionable) victory in federal court last week, the radical Christianists of Santa Rosa County are taking their Crusade Against the Constitution™ to the very heart of the issue. Next, they're going to try to have the consent decree (PDF) overturned* on the ground that it's unconstitutional.

But now, the nonprofit Liberty Counsel, a legal firm representing the Christian Educators [Association International], says the district went too far in its concessions to the ACLU.

Mat Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel, says the agreement fails to draw explicit distinctions between educators in their roles as government agents and their roles as private citizens.

"I think this order is too broad," he said. "When you are dealing with the First Amendment, you have to use a scalpel and a chain saw. You have to be very precise because you risk violating the rights of free speech and the rights of the School District employees."

Christian Educators has filed a motion to participate in the case with the goal of either changing the agreement or scrapping it. On Tuesday, it plans to file its written legal argument to participate.

U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers has scheduled a Dec. 2 and 3 hearing, after which she will decide whether the Christian Educators can take part.

If Rodgers doesn't allow Christian Educators to become a party to the lawsuit, the group plans to sue the School District.

"We're not going away and let this order continue to confuse and confound students and staff," Staver said.

Oh, come on, Mat -- "confound?" Are you saying students and staff in Santa Rosa County are so dumb that they can't comprehend the simple declaratory language of the decree, which explicitly states that there shall be no "promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in, or causing Prayers during or in conjunction with School Events," where the decree clearly defines "School Events?" You know and I know that private, individual or even small group prayers -- for example, privately saying grace before lunch -- are not prohibited by the consent decree. You just want to stir up more trouble and more publicity for your organization. I mean, you can't even spell "Matt," so why should we trust you about anything?**

Never mind that the U.S. Constitution prohibits governments -- federal, state, and local -- from the establishment of a religion. The whackjob Christianists won't be happy until we're a theocracy -- that, folks, is quite clear and indisputable, Joe Scarborough's hand-wringing tut-tuttery notwithstanding.

So, Judge Rodgers gets another crack at the issue, although her first hearing, in December, is merely about whether the Christian Educators can intervene. I don't really care one way or another whether they are a party to the lawsuit -- hell, the more, the merrier. But the real question is, when the actual merits of constitutionality come before her early next year, will she side with the Constitution or buckle to political pressure again? Stay tuned ....

---

* If you have no idea what I'm talking about, click here (and scroll past this post) for all the background.

** Yeah, okay, I'm just being silly here.