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.

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 11 — Trial

As I write this, the criminal contempt trial of Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman is taking place in federal district court in downtown Pensacola. I went down there this morning to try to get into the courtroom, but as Miss July suggested, I should have gotten there much earlier. (Yes, MJ, I should have listened to you ...) I wasn't able to get in, but it was interesting enough being outside for a short time, eavesdropping on conversations and observing the protestors across the street. Also, I did some livetweeting while I was there.

When I first arrived, I struck up a brief conversation with Benjamin Stevenson, the ACLU attorney who handled the Michelle Winkler case, also a Pace school prayer case, last month. I thanked him for what he and his colleagues were doing and added that it must be difficult in a community like Pensacola to work to defend the Constitution. Had I known at the time who he was, I certainly would have asked him to compare the Winkler case to the Lay/Freeman case; as I understand it, Winkler was not held in contempt because her actions took place at a private event, outside school hours and off school grounds. On the other hand, Lay and Freeman prayed at a luncheon during school hours at the high school (despite U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller's outrageous lies suggesting the opposite), and so I suspect the outcome will be different on that basis alone. Moreover, according to the Pensacola News Journal, the attorneys for the ACLU and for Lay and Freeman have stipulated that the constitutionality of the temporary injunction the men are accused of violating is not to be at issue; therefore, the only issue today is whether or not Lay and Freeman actually violated the order ... and that seems to be pretty clear.

Nevertheless, one attorney who spoke to the group awaiting entry -- to tell us the courtroom was completely full -- indicated that the trial was likely to stretch into the evening. If it goes on until tomorrow -- which would surprise me, since I don't see what really is in controversy from a legal standpoint -- I may try again to attend ... and get there earlier than I did today. Stay tuned.

Again, specific observations from the morning are available on my Twitter feed if you'd like to see them. Meanwhile, here are some pictures from this morning's protest (click for larger versions and captions):



UPDATE (9/17/09 11:20 am): Almost forgot to note the almost inconceivable irony of this trial taking place on Constitution Day. Too bad the Christianists apparently have forgotten what the Constitution is ... if they ever knew at all.

UPDATE (9/17/09 11:43 am): I meant to add that there were dozens of students, mostly from Pace High School but presumably others as well, in attendance today. More than likely, they skipped school, as one girl says she did, although I can see parents excusing their kids from school for something like this. I also understand that at least one child as young as sixth grade was missing school today to attend the protest.

I guess being at the protest was more important than school -- which is just sad.

Too stupid to breathe: Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Dumbfuckistan)

The stupid is strong with this one.

Sometimes I wonder how U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Chumuckla ... that's right, Chumuckla) got elected to Congress in the first place. Then I remember who elected him ... what his district looks like. And suddenly I get it.

You see, one can keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool. But yesterday, Jeff Miller got up on the floor of the House of Representatives and removed all doubt with regard to himself. And believe it or not, his fellow whackjob Christianists in Congress, the "Prayer Caucus," actually put the speech up on YouTube so the whole world could enjoy the lunacy:

Pandering is one thing, but making a complete travesty of fact and logic in order to do so, well, that takes special talent ... a talent Jeff Miller obviously has in copious amounts. You don't suppose the fact that Frank Lay and Robert Freeman are going to trial today had anything to do with Miller's epic oratory yesterday, do you?

Anyway, I'm going to have to give you the transcript of the speech, so you can get the full effect (italicized emphasis in original; boldface emphasis is mine):

Mr. Speaker, there is trouble brewing in the small community of Pace, Fla., a community of less than 8,000 people just south of my hometown, and full of hard-working Americans, where I believe that a federal judge has gone well outside the bounds of the Constitution to declare that prayer offered among adults is illegal. That's right: the judicial branch is once again trying to act like the legislative branch, and in doing so is hindering the First Amendment rights of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not a lawyer -- this is not a courtroom -- but as a member of Congress, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me, God. That's what I intend to do.

The facts of the case in Does v. School Board of Santa Rosa County are clear. The federal district court, without a hearing, issued an injunction preventing any school employee from promoting or facilitating prayer at any school-sponsored event. That action alone tramples upon the First Amendment rights of a specific group of people, denying them the equal protection that's provided under the very Constitution that we believe in.

The same federal district court has now gone on to prohibit all employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities. The same court now thinks that Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman violated this injunction at a private event, with zero student participation. That the court would somehow consider this action to be criminal behavior [is un]conscionable. However, Frank Lay and Robert Freeman now face criminal contempt charges for praying before a meal that was to be shared. All of this despite the fact that the Supreme Court itself has found that the Free Speech Clause protects private religious speech. The Supreme Court has further gone to find that not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or at a school-sponsored event is attributable to the government.

As lawmakers, we cannot sit idly by and let this happen. As members of Congress, we must act to uphold the Constitution. And as Americans, we must fight to ensure that our rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech are not taken away.

America is a nation of principles. We can sit here all night and argue about whether we are a nation of Judeo-Christian principles or of secular principles. But the fact is that our Constitution protects all Americans, and a court has no place deciding that some Americans do not warrant those protections. The Founding Fathers would be appalled, and I certainly am as well. I yield back ...

Now, it's tempting to take apart Rep. Pander's Miller's speech point-by-point, but anyone with half a brain can do that. Still, for the benefit of the wingnuts who lack that half-brain, a few pertinent points:

• If you're not a lawyer, then don't argue the law, dumbass. You "believe" the court went beyond the bounds of the Constitution? Do you believe in Santa Claus, too? You'd be just as credible if you do.
  


• No one makes the judicial branch act more like a legislative branch than some of the wingnuts on the U.S. Supreme Court, like Justice Antonin Scalia, who are notorious judicial activists. Bush v. Gore, anyone?


• The Constitution doesn't exist to protect the rights of the majority, Rep. Miller, but of the minority. No one's rights are being "trampled" by being forbidden to conduct organized prayer at a school-sponsored event; rather, the rights of non-Christians to not be subjected to such prayer ought to be the paramount concern. You should have learned that in civics class, congressman. Aren't you smarter than a fifth grader?


• A private event, with no students present? According to the complaint originally filed, the congressman is just flat-out wrong here:
  
  

  During a school-day luncheon on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at the Dedication of the new Field House at Pace High School, Defendant Principal Frank Lay asked Robert Earl Freeman, Pace High Athletic Director, to offer a prayer to bless the food. See Ex. 86-02 at 1-4 (“In a traditional manner [Mr. Lay] asked Athletic Director, Robert Freeman to bless the food for the adults in attendance. Respectfully he responded to [Mr. Lay’s] request.” Id. at 1. “Principal Frank Lay asked [Mr. Freeman] to give thanks for our lunch, which [Mr. Freeman] did.” Id. at 2. “[Mr. Lay] asked Robert Freeman to ask a blessing on the food. [Mr. Lay] shared that [he is], and [was] at the date of this incident, aware of the court injunction and aware that this type of action is not permissible under the injunction.” Id. at p. 3.).
  
  Upon Mr. Lay’s request, Mr. Freeman offered a prayer at the event. Pace High students and faculty and community members were present at the Dedication of the new Field House. In response to Mr. Lay asking Mr. Freeman to pray and Mr. Freeman praying at a school event on Jan. 28, 2009, Defendant Superintendent instructed Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman to “avoid this type of action as it not permitted or [sic] as per the attached injunction.” Ex. 86-02 at 3-4. Although the actions of Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman appear to be in violation of the court’s preliminary injunction, Defendant Superintendent nevertheless ends his “reprimand” by thanking them “for [their] leadership at Pace High School.” Id.

  Seems pretty clear to me that the event was not private and students were there, unless Rep. Miller astonishingly has access to evidence that shows otherwise. I can't imagine the plaintiffs would have included it in their complaint if it weren't true, since it's so easy to prove or disprove objectively. Besides, even if students were not present, the luncheon still would be a "school-sponsored event," not a private one as he alleges, and this obviously is not "private religious speech" as Rep. Miller suggests. Again, Jeff: not lawyer? Don't argue law.


• It should go without saying that courts decide all the time that some Americans don't warrant certain protections. Time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech are just one basic example of how courts and the law restrain constitutional rights. I shouldn't expect Jeff Miller to know this but, as a member of Congress, it sure would be nice if he did.
  


• Finally (for the purposes of this post), the Founding Fathers would be delighted, not appalled, that their wishes had been carried out. For starters, read Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a significant source for the First Amendment, which spells out precisely why people should be free from having a particular set of religious beliefs imposed on them. Bottom line: this isn't a freedom-of-speech issue, and the only part of the First Amendment implicated here is the Establishment Clause, which the court is trying to uphold.

Sure, I'm a lawyer, but it took me all of five minutes to find most of this stuff on the Internet. You'd think a freakin' member of Congress could do it pretty easily, too. But, apparently that's not the case for my very own congresscritter, Jeff Miller, who clearly and painfully is too stupid to breathe.

UPDATE (9/17/09 11:17 am): I see someone from Reston, Va., near D.C., just stopped by to read this post, having found it on something called "ReputationConnect.com." You don't suppose Jeff is checking to see what people think of him, do you?

Ah, never mind ... I'm not even sure he knows how to pull stuff through the intertubes, because if he did, he could have debunked his whole speech in minutes, even before he delivered it.

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 10 — Taking it to the streets ... and Congress

On the eve of the bench trial to determine whether Pace (Fla.) High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman should be held in criminal contempt for violating a federal injunction against organized prayer in their public school*, some of the biggest idiots on the planet are weighing in with their support (predictably) of the two educators. Unfortunately, those particular idiots all happen to be members of the U.S. Congress.

U.S. Rep. Jeff Miller and a group of federal lawmakers have pledged their support for Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and the school's athletic director, Robert Freeman, as they face federal criminal contempt charges on Thursday.

Miller, R-Chumuckla, along with U.S. Reps. J. Randy Forbes, R-Va., and Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., wrote Lay and Freeman on behalf of the 54-member Congressional Prayer Caucus.

"Please know that we are standing with you in prayer and support as you face your trial on Thursday because of offering a prayer," the letter reads.

Miller said Tuesday that 29 members of Congress, some of them members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, had signed the letter of support.

The letter ends: "The tradition of offering prayer in America has become so interwoven into our nation's spiritual history that to charge someone criminally for engaging in such an innocent practice would astonish the men who founded this country on religious liberty."

Obviously, these members of Congress openly support violations of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly and unequivocally forbids religious activity of the type in which Lay and Freeman engaged -- specifically, a Christian prayer at a public school event.

But, as with all of the whackjob Christianists who have expressed their support over time for these two men who obviously hate America and its freedoms, these members of Congress are missing the point altogether.

Once again (I sound like a broken record): THE CHARGES ARE NOT FOR PRAYING!! Rather, the charges are for violating a court order prohibiting organized prayer in public school, an activity which itself would "astonish the men who founded this country." It is not a restriction of religious liberty -- rather, it is a protection of religious liberty in that it keeps non-Christians from having to endure Christian prayers being forced upon them! Why is this so difficult to comprehend, especially for members of Congress?

Later in the article, two of the congressional signatories to the letter supporting violations of the Constitution throw up a strawman, further bolstering the conclusion that they have no clue what they're talking about:

Miller, whose congressional district includes Pace, called the consent decree too broad.

"To think that a person can be held in criminal contempt for asking someone to say a prayer, it really concerns me and many members of Congress," he said.

Forbes formed the Prayer Caucus in 2005 with the intent to "recognize the vital role that prayer by individuals of all faiths has played in uniting us as a people," according to the group's Web site.

Forbes, an attorney who has been member of Congress since 2001, on Tuesday called the consent decree "unconstitutional."

"I think that's a dangerous road to go down in this country," he said.

What concerns me is the willingness of these members of Congress to ignore settled American law! Look, there are at least three salient points here:

1. To Rep. Forbes: Lay and Freeman are not being charged with violations of the consent decree, but rather with violating a temporary restraining order that preceded the consent decree. Maybe you should pay better attention, Rep. Forbes, Mr. Attorney.


2. If the consent decree (which is, as already established, irrelevant to the charges against Lay and Freeman) is unconstitutional, then maybe the Santa Rosa County School District shouldn't have signed it. But they did, and they now are bound by it, subject only to a court order overturning it ... which hasn't happened yet and most likely won't.


3. Finally, no matter what you may think of the consent decree or of the charges against Lay and Freeman, the ultimate point is that Santa Rosa County school personnel systematically and intentionally have ignored the First Amendment (which expressly prohibits any "establishment of religion" by governmental entities) for years. It's just that it took them a while to get caught.

It's a shame that so many people are using this issue as an opportunity for political grandstanding and hand-wringing over the loss of values and morals in America -- since there's nothing of the kind going on here at all. At the risk of redundancy, I'll remind those in Pace and elsewhere that prayer in public school is fine, so long as it's private and not organized or led by school officials. Seriously, you people are dense.

Wait, did I say "dense?" Perhaps that's too lenient, considering this billboard that appears prominently on U.S. 90 eastbound, heading into Pace from Pensacola:

Talk about misstating an issue ... how can you "return" something that never was there (at least not legally) in the first place?!? This sign, like its ubiquitous yard sign cousins proclaiming "IN GOD WE TRUST: Pray For Our Schools," is just another means to divert attention from the real issue here: the endemic violations of the U.S. Constitution and Lay and Freeman's intentional defiance of a federal court order. (And you can bet I won't be patronizing Advanced Dental Concepts anytime soon. If they want to go back to the Dark Ages in our schools, what kind of dental hygiene are they practicing, anyway?)

Tomorrow's contempt trial should be very interesting indeed. Stay tuned.

---

* Further background on the case is here, if you're new to the story or need a refresher. Please scroll past this post at the link to view previous entries.

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 8 — Ignorance reigns supreme

Remember that long post I said I wanted to write? Well, this is it ... and it still doesn't cover everything I wanted to address.

If you've been following the Pace High School prayer story since its inception (and if you haven't, you can catch up here, scrolling past this current post), you know that public opinion out of Santa Rosa County and the greater Pensacola area has been strongly in favor of the illegal actions of Pace High principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman. To me, this shows nothing more than (1) people around here don't care much about the law, and (2) supporters of the two men essentially are ignorant.

Don't get me wrong: if they want to throw money away contributing to Lay's soon-to-be-unsuccessful legal defense, more power to them. The problem here is not that they want to support their friend/colleague/fellow Jesus-worshipper, but rather the overriding attitude that their worship of Jesus somehow puts them (and Lay) above the law.

"We feel what Frank Lay has done echoes the conscience of the community," said [Lay's friend, insurance salesman Robert] Smith, a former Santa Rosa county commissioner and, more recently, the leader of an unsuccessful charge to keep liquor sales out of the county.

"Our school district in Santa Rosa County is so unique. We continue to excel academically. There's something going on over here that's right, and we think this is part of it."

The Rev. Ted Traylor, pastor of Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, also is lending a hand by promoting the legal-defense fund on his blog. Lay is an 11-year member of Olive Baptist and a deacon there.

Traylor, who writes his personal views every Tuesday and Friday, said Lay and Freeman shouldn't face charges for asking a blessing.

"To quote the Commander in Chief on another issue: this is acting stupidly," he wrote. "But, this is the America we live in today. Socialism is next. Then comes communism. If we do not stand with Frank, they will come and take us away next."

Oh, come on, Rev. Traylor! They'll be far too busy taking away your guns and your hard-earned money to come and take you away! Seriously, though, you see what I mean? These people place the "conscience of the community" above the U.S. Constitution!

Smith is even producing T-shirts (shown at right, courtesy of WALA Fox10 News) that completely (and, I imagine, intentionally) misrepresent the issue, asserting that the very institution of prayer is under assault here (whereas, as has been stated repeatedly here and elsewhere until I'm blue in the face, no one seriously is contending that the students can't pray -- even in school! It's merely prayer organized and led or approved by public school personnel that is proscribed by law!).

But, unfortunately, such ignorance is not just limited to Lay's friends. Check out the craziness that has appeared in recent letters to the editor in the Pensacola News Journal:

August 11:

The name may be Frank Lay, but everything I have seen in the man is "stand-up." Meanwhile, the un-American Casualty of Liberties Union is attempting to take away the very liberties they purportedly are trying to protect.

Most men lie down at the first sign of real adversity; not Frank Lay. This man has spent his career educating our youth, instilling professionalism in students and teachers alike, molding discipline and character. Lay, in my opinion, has the intellect to manage at the highest corporate level but he chose to be a servant and give instead of take; a man of integrity; a man of courage to speak his mind; a man who actually lives the faith that harbors his soul.

As I look around and see the decadence and immorality cascading to levels unseen, I am overwhelmed that we still have great American men who take a stand to protect what our forefathers forged more than 200 years ago.

— Carl F. King II

Hey, I think it's great that Frank Lay is a man of faith. He should feel free to practice his faith in church, at home, even in a public forum ... but not in a place where his professional authority is conferred by the government. As for "protect[ing] what our forefathers forged more than 200 years ago," I'm not sure what Mr. King thinks was "forged" back then, but it definitely was not the ability to foist one's particular faith onto others with the backing of the government. Religious freedom means not only practicing whatever religion you wish (or none at all), but also freedom from governmental establishment of religion. More on that below ...

Also from August 11:

In my opinion I think U. S. District Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers should be ashamed of herself for instigating these charges against Mr. Lay.

In God We Trust.

— Carol Alfonsin Boyle

Setting aside for the moment the fact that "instigating" doesn't mean what Ms. Boyle apparently thinks it means, Judge Rodgers is sworn to uphold the law, which in this case means enforcing the consent decree she approved, one to which the Santa Rosa County School District agreed. Lay and Freeman violated the decree; that is contempt of court under the law. The real shame is that Ms. Boyle deigns to tell a federal judge how to do her job.

August 14:

While wackos kill innocent folks in gyms and schools, murdering commandos kill a Beulah couple, lunatics, robbers, rapists, illegals, gangs and drug dealers roam our land at will, we're wasting money we don't have and manpower we can't afford prosecuting two revered school teachers who are widely credited for helping turn out the best-educated students in Florida for the federal criminal offense of praying before a meal. Where is the ACLU when their rights are trampled?

If Frank Lay and Robert Freeman are dubbed criminals, this surely will end as a tragedy we will see as a weakened school system. If this is the sorry thanks we give to two good men who have dedicated their lives to bettering our children, then fewer good men will volunteer.

In a play off a statement made by our first lady, I am finally ashamed of our country.

— Sandy Wyatt, Pace

[...]

I have grandchildren coming up in this world. I wish there were something I could do to stop this insanity. Why are "they" so afraid of God? I pray that this mess will be straightened out and with a happy ending.

— Devona Willis, Laurel Hill

Ms. Wyatt, why do you hate America? The only weakening of the (public) school system would be if school officials were permitted to impose their Christian beliefs on the students, some of whom are not Christian and likely some of whom do not believe in God. If a parent wants Christian education, there are plenty of private schools that would be more than willing to accept Pace's students. To put it simply: religious indoctrination has no place in public school.

By the way, Ms. Wyatt, the criminal offense wasn't "praying before a meal;" it was violating a temporary injunction against school activities that violate the U.S. Constitution -- violations Santa Rosa County school officials previously were more than willing to commit. But nice strawman argument anyway ...

And Ms. Willis, I would respond by asking why "you" are so afraid of the law and the Constitution? This isn't insanity; no one is being told they can't pray (or they shouldn't be told that) -- just that they can't have prayer led by public school officials. Big difference ...

August 18:

I believe civil disobedience (for Christians) is justified when God's principles are opposed.

There is only one God, the one who enjoys Frank Lay's allegiance! Lay is a man of God, not ashamed of His Master! America needs more like him, like most of our founding fathers. This mother of a Pace High graduate was grateful he was in that environment.

If every "Christian" in the educational system took a stand for God, we could take back our public schools and our beloved country from Satan's bunch. The ACLU would get a run for its money.

Liberal judges need to know the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, before it's too late. We'll all stand before the Judge of Judges one day.

Our School Board should never have signed the "consent decree." I wasn't surprised at the member who reported the incident. She opposed the elective Bible course offered years ago. Thank God for Chuck Norris and his wife who researched the legality thereof.

God bless you all as only he can.

— Chrys Holley, Milton

This letter practically defines the "whackjob Christianist" genre. Ms. Holley seems to think only Christians have a right to civil disobedience -- this in a country founded on the right to worship as one wishes, or not at all. It would be difficult to be more wrong (in light of settled American law and jurisprudence) than this letter ...

I think it's great, Ms. Holley, how happy you are for your son having graduated from Pace High. But how should the students from Jewish families or Muslim families or atheist families react to that? See, Ms. Holley, you don't have the right to push your beliefs on others in a public school. That's the bottom line. And if you don't like it, you're free to try to repeal that part of the First Amendment. Good luck with that.

August 19:

We have a constitutional right to free speech, not to be protected from what we don't want to hear. All of us have to listen to things we do not like, such as the vitriol launched against those who believe in prayer.

It is wrong for a few unbelievers to tyrannize and prevent the free speech of the majority and to prevent the free speech of student leaders because of what they might say. No one is forced to join in.

Congress prays. The Constitutional Convention in June of 1787, stymied by its members' disagreements, began to pray daily at the suggestion of Ben Franklin. National days of prayer and fasting were commonly declared in the early days of our nation.

It is not prayer that is the problem in this country today; it is the lack of it and the denial to God of His proper place in our lives that are.

— Carolyn Hinton, Pensacola

Where did you earn your law degree, Ms. Hinton? Free speech is not absolute -- American courts, including the Supreme Court, long have recognized limits to free speech. These limits include certain restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech and limits on free speech in public schools. Religious indoctrination simply is not permitted in public schools, and it shouldn't be permitted now.

You may be surprised to learn that the Constitution does not exist to ensure the rights of the majority, Ms. Hinton; rather, it serves to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If we followed your rules, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't have the right to vote. Fortunately on both counts, that's not the case. As for "no one is forced to join in," that's just bullshit and everyone knows it. What constitutes "forced" in your opinion, Ms. Hinton? If a Jewish child doesn't want to pray to the Christian God, do you think he or she will feel free to decline in a Santa Rosa County public school and, more to the point, that said child won't be ostracized for failing to pray?

Sure, Congress prays. But there are limits to the prayers, the prayers are offered by various denominations including Jewish rabbis and Muslim clerics, and the members of Congress are adults who are capable of declining to pray or not deriding others who choose not to pray. This isn't a freedom of speech issue -- it's an issue of freedom from the establishment of religion, which is expressly provided by the First Amendment.

Get over yourself, Ms. Hinton. Your attitude sucks.

But the very best example of this kind of stark raving Christianist lunacy comes from one Dorothy Jacobs of Pensacola, who brilliantly argued in a letter published on August 20 (page 2 at link), "Wake up, America! The Constitution promises freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Will we soon be called the United Soviet Socialist States of America?" Precisely wrong, Ms. Jacobs, as the First Amendment provides for both freedom of and freedom from religion. And what this has to do with socialism -- an economic theory -- I have absolutely no idea. She's probably just railing against that eeeeeevil black man in the White House ....

I know this was a long post, but I think it was necessary for you to understand exactly what we reality-based people have to face in northwest Florida. The News Journal runs letters at least two-to-one in favor of Lay and Freeman; whether that's reflective of their own bias or the number of letters they're getting, I don't know. Either way, it's frightening to see the lack of respect for the Constitution around here.

I've generally opposed the idea of jail time for Lay and Freeman, who will face their criminal contempt charges in a September 17 hearing ... but if giving the two wrongdoers a little time behind bars will wake up the Christianists to the reality that they can't impose their fundamentalist "values" in a public school setting, then maybe locking them up for a bit is the right way to go.

(More discussion on this tonight on Blast Off! Radio at a special time, 7:00 pm Eastern .... details to come show details are here.)

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 7 — School district employee cleared of contempt charges

I've been mulling over an extensive post covering the ongoing school prayer saga in Santa Rosa County for some time now, but there's just so much material, it's hard for me to wrap my brain around it all. In short, this isn't that post. But it is the next installment in the series "Pace: The Final Frontier," as school district clerk Michelle Winkler (right, with her attorney Horatio Mihet) managed to avoid a contempt rap for her actions in having her husband deliver a prayer at a school-related banquet.

As noted here a couple of weeks ago in the last series installment, Winkler faced civil contempt charges brought by the ACLU, which must be distinguished from the criminal contempt charges faced by Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman. Basically, Lay and Freeman are accused by the court of willfully violating a temporary injunction that preceded (and essentially was the preliminary version of) the consent decree by which the school district promised not to permit organized, public prayer by its employees, whereas the ACLU --not the court -- accused Winkler of violating that temporary injunction.

The court's ruling apparently rests on the fact that the prayer offered by Winkler's husband at her behest did not occur at a "school function."

[U.S. District Judge Casey] Rodgers said that while Winkler clearly defied a superior's directive, she did not willfully violate a temporary injunction Rodgers implemented on Jan. 19, as the School District and ACLU hashed out a long-term written agreement.

[...]

Winkler was given notice from a superior that she could not offer a prayer at a Feb. 20 Employee of the Year banquet, but instead had her husband give the invocation.

The banquet required paid admission and was funded not by the School District, but a nonprofit organization called the Santa Rosa Education Foundation paid all of the expenses.

School districts are not allowed to use public money to fund entertainment events, Mihet said, so the foundation, which makes its money through private donations, paid for the event.

ACLU attorneys Benjamin Stevenson and Glenn Katon both argued that funding was a moot issue as without the School District, the foundation wouldn't exist and the employee banquet wouldn't have taken place.

Obviously, the court disagreed with the argument Stevenson and Katon made, and in my opinion as a lawyer, it appears to be the correct decision. The banquet, while it certainly was related to school activities, appears to have been a private affair and not a "school event" as clearly defined in paragraph 3(g) of the consent decree (PDF). It was paid for by private funds and held outside of school times and facilities. In that sense, it was like a private baccalaureate service held at a nearby church, which was conducted in response to the school-led baccalaureate that started this whole mess in the first place. Such private events are perfectly permissible.

This is a critical distinction, because the actions of Lay and Freeman unquestionably took place during school hours on school grounds, and so the luncheon at which their prayer occurred most likely was a "school event" within the meaning of the consent decree. So even though I have no doubt the Christianist whackjobs will proclaim the ruling in Winkler's case as divine intervention and they'll prattle on incessantly about how this shows that students ought to have the privilege of hearing God's word in public schools --oh, wait, they're already saying that -- the basic fact is that this ruling has absolutely no precedential effect on the Lay/Freeman case. The situations are completely different ... and Mihet properly understands this, saying in the article that he "is not going to speculate as to what today's decision means for Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman."

I don't know whether I'll ever get to that Big Post I keep promising about this case ... but I think it's going to be the main topic on Monday's Blast Off! Radio show, so please make plans to join me then if you're interested ....

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 6 — Criminal charges for prayer in school

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. The controversy over prayer in school in Pace, Fla., just won't go away.

Can the staff at Pace High School not comprehend the Constitution? Hell, they don't even have to understand the Constitution -- all they have to do is comprehend and follow the consent decree to which their bosses at the Santa Rosa County School District agreed. But, no, apparently that's too much for at least three members of the Pace High staff:

Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and his athletic director, Robert Freeman, now face criminal contempt charges that accuse them of violating a federal court order banning Santa Rosa County school officials from leading prayers at school events.

U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers instigated the criminal charges against Lay and Freeman on July 22, according to Lay's attorney, Horatio Mihet of Orlando.

Lay formerly faced a civil contempt charge, which could have resulted in a fine. Freeman was not charged at all.

Rodgers' decision to turn the case into a criminal matter against Lay and Freeman means they could be sentenced to jail or fined, if found in contempt.

[...]

In a separate matter, Michelle Winkler, a School District clerical assistant, faces a civil contempt charge instigated by the American Civil Liberties Union.

On Feb. 20, at the School-Related Employee of the Year banquet, Winkler was asked to offer a "thought for the day." Instead, she turned to her husband, who is not a School District employee, and asked him to offer a prayer.

Now, I doubt Lay and Freeman will do any jail time for their transgressions, but they absolutely are getting what they deserve. They have flouted the law, claiming some kind of moral superiority as Christians, and they've been supported (or, at least, not opposed) in their efforts by the entire school district structure -- why else do Lay and Freeman still have their jobs? And Winkler's act specifically was condoned, if not approved, by school district personnel:

On Jan. 23, Jud Crane, the district's director of purchasing and a coordinator of the Employee of the Year banquet, e-mailed Winkler that she would most likely would not be allowed to offer a prayer at the event but would have to offer a "thought for the day" and a moment of silence.

Winkler e-mailed back that she wanted to use a prayer she "prayed about and received from God," that she was "unfearful of the current events," and she would "suffer whatever consequences for."

"I cannot be silent as God is my very life and Christ is who I am," she wrote.

Crane asked Winkler to send him the prayer.

"I'm with you ... but I'll get it cleared," he wrote.

After checking with School Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick, Crane wrote Winkler on Jan. 26 that the prayer would not be allowed.

"I'm with you?" Way to enforce that consent decree, Jud.

Look, folks: there isn't room for negotiation here under the law. You can't organize prayers at public school events -- not just because of the consent decree (which merely enforces the already-existing law), but because of the United States Constitution (ever heard of that?). If Christ is who you are, Ms. Winkler, that's fine for you -- but you can't foist that upon everyone around you, not legally. Believe it or not, not everyone agrees with you -- not even in Pace.

The fact that Frank Lay and Robert Freeman still are employed by the Santa Rosa County School District just proves that the district has no respect for law, nor for Judge Rodgers and the federal district court. If Superintendent Wyrosdick fails to take appropriate action to prevent further violations of the consent decree -- by firing school personnel who cannot conform their actions to the law -- then he, too, is demonstrating his contempt for the law and should face legal sanctions. A mere "slap on the wrist" or, worse, ignoring the transgressions of Lay, Freeman, and Winkler will only empower the Christianists in their illegal efforts to practice invidious religious discrimination against those who disagree with them.

UPDATE (9:19 am 8/8/09): I understand there is an email circulating among parents of students in Pace, seeking financial support for Lay's legal defense. That's all well and good, but they characterize the actions of Lay (and Freeman, I gather) as merely "asking for a blessing" (paraphrased) at a school event ... as though a "blessing" somehow is distinct from a "prayer," and as though it's somehow permissible under the consent decree.

Whatever. It's like arguing with a brick wall, dealing with these rabid Christianists ....

(I'll post the email if I ever can get a hold of it ...)