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.

Blast Off! Radio PRIMETIME tonight, 7:00 pm EDT: Focus on the Pace school prayer debate

Last week's show, which dealt predominately with the health care reform issue, seemed to go well with a single-topic focus, so today I'll try it again. However, because of personal obligations, I have to shift the show time to evening, so it's going to be another special edition of Blast Off! Radio PRIMETIME!

Tonight we'll take a closer look at the ongoing efforts by radical Christianists in Pace, Fla., to inject their fundamentalist brand of religion into the city's (and Santa Rosa County's) public schools. This topic has been covered extensively on Blast Off! over the last few months*, but it's received comparatively little attention on the sucky radio show. I'm hoping to compensate for that somewhat tonight.

Of course, the Pace situation may be just a table-setter for the broader issue of religion in public schools and in government generally. Those of us who thought that the demise of the Bush crime syndicate meant the end of right-wing efforts to create an American theocracy evidently were wrong ... and northwest Florida appears to be the front line of the attacks on the Constitution.

Time permitting, maybe we'll go beyond Pace a bit and do some much-needed pointing-and-laughing at the latest escapades of former Florida House speaker Ray Sansom and talk about the Miami Herald's empty threats against a south Florida blogger.

As always, though, your participation makes the show click. Please gather up your stories, your anecdotes, and your righteous indignation about religious entanglement in government and public schools and plan to share them all on the show tonight. Here's how:

SPECIAL TIME: 7:00 pm Eastern TONIGHT

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

I'm looking forward to what promises to be another barnburner of a show. Catch you tonight on Blast Off! Radio PRIMETIME!

(cross-posted at FPC Blog)

---

* When you click the link, this post will be at the top; scroll past it to review Blast Off!'s coverage of the whole mess.

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 ...)

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 5 — NOW I get it ... but the high school doesn't

When last we checked in on the whackjob Christianists in Pace, Fla., their battle to ignore the U.S. Constitution had evolved from one purely about organized prayer in public schools to something more abstract but still related, namely, the Santa Rosa County School Board's decision to restrict student speakers at graduation to those selected "on a neutral basis," such as grades. Many of Pace High School's students and others in the community were --and are -- up in arms about the fact that elected student leaders would be barred from speaking, apparently because of the school board's concern that they might offer an organized prayer in violation of a federal consent decree.* Despite my status as a godless DFH, I even allowed that perhaps the Board's restrictions might be a bit "draconian," that is, they might go too far because there was no reason to presume that, say, the student body president would pray in her speech; moreover, if the school instructed the "non-neutral-basis" speakers not to pray, that may be enough to show compliance with the consent decree (PDF).

Boy, was I wrong.

Last evening there was a rally, deceptively titled a "Students' Rights Rally," at Pace Assembly of God, where two of the key players in this drama -- Pace High's student body president and its principal -- spoke. And they left no doubt whatsoever that if other students were allowed to speak at graduation, they would lead organized prayers, and they gladly would violate the consent decree and the Constitution if given the chance.

It may cost him his job, but Pace High School Principal Frank Lay says he won't sit back and watch student leaders be denied a chance to speak at their own graduation — despite worries they may violate a federal consent decree.

"No way are we going to back down, back off, lay down or roll over," he said to the applause of more than 700 people who attended a Students' Rights Rally at Pace Assembly of God on Tuesday night.

A federal judge issued an order in January prohibiting district employees from promoting or endorsing prayers at school functions and organizing school-sponsored religious services.

[...]

Mary Allen, Pace High student body president, thanked those who attended. She will not be allowed to speak at graduation.

"Praise God for students who are not afraid to step out on faith," she said.

Many active and retired teachers were present, as were several Pace High staff members. No district officials or board members were at the rally, organizers said.

Removing student leaders from speaking at graduation is unfortunate and unnecessary, said the Rev. Joey Rogers, pastor of Pace Assembly of God.

"The consent decree signed by the School Board has given away much of our freedoms," he said. "It has been over and above what needed to be done. It is time we stand up because the next generation is counting on that."

Lay said it is time the community takes responsibility.

"The blame game is the devil's game," he said. "It is the devil's distraction for what we need to do, and we need to get busy as Christian people."

Wow. Let's take these one at a time, because I don't think there could have been three quotes that damaged their argument more profoundly than these.

First, Mary Allen: you just guaranteed that you won't get to speak at graduation. If you'd said, "Prayer is a private matter, and while I would pray on my own before speaking, I would comply with the consent decree, follow the Constitution, and refrain from offering a prayer from the lectern," you'd be fine. Instead, you showed exactly why the school board had to make the decision they did -- because you proved that you won't be able to resist praying in public. The board rightfully can't take that chance.

Rev. Rogers, other than grandstanding, I still don't see why you're involved in this at all. (Okay, it was your church hosting the rally, but still ...) No one's freedoms are "given away" by the consent decree; to the contrary, everyone's right to be free from unnecessary intrusion of a specific religious belief has been preserved. You know, the Constitution doesn't exist to guarantee the rights of the majority -- it exists to protect the rights of a minority, even a minority of one, against the forced imposition of majority rule. While white evangelical Christians surely are the overwhelming majority in Pace, Rev. Rogers, that's all the more reason to ensure that your majority doesn't trample the rights of those who are not white evangelical Christians. That's why the Constitution exists, Reverend -- not to push some erroneous and historically inaccurate notion of a "Christian" nation.

Finally, Principal Lay: you of all people should recognize that while you may disagree personally with a particular policy, it is your duty to implement it. It's disgraceful that you forsook a tremendous "teachable moment," an opportunity to explain how the consent decree upholds the Constitution, and instead you chimed in with everyone else to advance your personal beliefs at the expense of knowledge, reason, and true American values. I don't begrudge you your faith, nor would I ever say that you can't pray on your own, even in a public school. But you should know full well that it's disingenuous at best, and hypocritical at worst, to don the mantle of "Christian people" to justify ramming your faith down the collective throats of a community whose members all shouldn't have to be subjected to it. Not everyone believes as you do, Principal Lay, even in Pace. It would do you good to bear that in mind.

As I've explained before, this is not a free speech issue; it is an issue of whether or not the state can "establish" a particular religion. The Constitution cannot be invoked to protect the (Christian majority) students' rights, as the title of the rally sought to convey, but to protect the rights of those students and others who do not necessarily believe in the Christian faith.

It is unfortunate that the federal courts and the ACLU are being characterized as the "bad guys" in all of this, for all they have done is ensure that the Constitution -- the law of the land -- is followed. It is also unfortunate that the principal and others face potential professional discipline or worse because they refuse to obey the consent decree. But unless and until they recognize that they cannot force their faith on others in public schools, they only have themselves to blame for the consequences of their actions.

---

* To my knowledge, no one yet has raised the question of whether the "neutral basis" speakers, the valedictorian and salutatorian, might offer prayers and, if so, what might result therefrom.

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 4 — Pastors continue to grandstand over prayer in school

Earlier today, I promised you posts about two news items regarding the intersection of religion and free speech. The first was about Liberty University forcing its College Democrats chapter to disband because it purportedly does not fit within the university's mission. Locally, though, there's another controversy that, in a way, approaches a similar issue from a completely different angle.

As mentioned previously in Blast Off!'s exclusive series "Pace: the final frontier," the Santa Rosa County School Board entered into a consent decree -- essentially, the settlement of a lawsuit that was not for monetary damages -- in which they promised to discontinue the practice of organizing Christian activities or prayers, such as for Pace High School's baccalaureate service, in response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. But with Pace's graduation approaching, two local pastors have made it their own personal crusade ... and they're only making things worse for everyone.

Rev. Joey Rogers of Pace Assembly of God, who previously had stepped up to help organize a perfectly legal private baccalaureate in compliance with the consent decree, just can't leave well enough alone. In response to a decision by the school board that only the school's valedictorian and salutatorian can speak at graduation, he's planned a "Students' Rights Rally" Tuesday to protest the board's action.

“The School Board has decided no one other than the valedictorian or salutatorian can speak at graduation at all high schools,” said the Rev. Joey Rogers, pastor of Pace Assembly of God. “Pressure from the ACLU has brought them to this place.”

Some Pace High School student leaders were scheduled to speak at graduation on May 30, the Rev. Rogers said.

“I’m sure the word got out that they are very strong Christians and were going to speak,” he said. “So, the School Board took action and cleared the roster because they may say ‘God’ or ‘prayer’ or ‘Jesus’.”

I am so sick of this misstating of the law. No wonder students and others are so confused! Rev. Rogers, have you even read the consent decree? Well, I have, and now you can, too (PDF). It reads in part:

School Officials are permanently enjoined from promoting, advancing, endorsing, participating in, or causing Prayers during or in conjunction with School Events for any school within the School District:

(a) School Officials shall neither offer nor participate in a Prayer during or in conjunction with a School Event.

(b) School Officials shall prohibit non-student third-parties (including clergy or other religious leaders) from offering a Prayer, invocation, benediction, or other religious remarks during or in conjunction with a School Event.

(c) School Officials shall not include Prayer, whether or not it is noted in a printed program, during or in conjunction with a School Event. School Officials shall not authorize students, student groups, a student body (e.g., through an election), or third parties to include Prayer, whether or not it is noted in a printed program, during or in conjunction with a School Event.

(d) School Officials shall not encourage, solicit, or invite any person, either implicitly or explicitly, to deliver or offer a Prayer during or in conjunction with a School Event. School Officials shall not set aside a time for Prayer during or in conjunction with a School Event.

(e) If a School Official elects to review or may by policy review the content of a student's or any other person's planned address during or in conjunction with a School Event, then School Officials shall prohibit the person making the address from offering a Prayer.

[...]

(g) If School Officials select persons to make an address during or in conjunction with [a] School Event, they shall do so by a selection process that is neutral to religion and in compliance with a written policy.

(h) To the extent that School Officials permit a person during or in conjunction with School Events to give an address that a School Official can or does shape, review, or edit for content, substance, message, style, or theme, then School Officials shall instruct the person that the person's address must exclude Prayer.

(Ed. -- capitalized terms are defined elsewhere in the consent decree.)

Apparently, Santa Rosa County school officials determined that if they permitted students other than the valedictorian or salutatorian to speak, they just might offer prayers. Based on my reading of the consent decree, that is a reasonable -- if somewhat draconian -- response. Besides, who's to say that the valedictorian or salutatorian won't offer a prayer? I mean, obviously they'll be told not to do so ... but when has that ever stopped a headstrong teenager?

My biggest problem with Rev. Rogers' diatribe is that nowhere does the consent decree state that a student cannot "say 'God' or 'prayer' or 'Jesus.' " Indeed, there is language in it that specifically forbids school officials from "discourag[ing] students to engage in religious activity." If a teacher, for example, wants to pray privately or in a small group before eating his or her lunch, or if a student says a private prayer before taking a big exam, that's fine. Rev. Rogers and those like him are deliberately muddying the waters to make it seem that no prayer is permissible, when the reality is simply that no organized prayer is permissible ... which, I might add, was what the law allowed even before the consent decree, notwithstanding Pace High's failure to abide by the law.

Meanwhile, speaking of grandstanding, another local pastor who has graced this blog's pixels before, Rev. Matt Cotten, is stirring the pot as well. He spoke yesterday (although he wasn't quoted in the article) at a rally protesting the school board's graduation speaker decision.

"We were not going to promote Christianity at our graduation," said Mary Allen, Pace High's student body president. "The School Board is prohibiting us from speaking because they are afraid we are going to pray, and by doing so, they are taking away our First Amendment rights."

[...]

If a student did pray, officials would have to stop it, Green said. To avoid a disruption to graduation, they decided to allow only student speakers selected on a neutral basis like grade-point average.

[...]

But Milton High senior Christine Mayeaux feels her rights have been violated.

"Rather than protect my rights, the ACLU has taken them away from me," she said. "Now, I won't be able to speak for my classmates as they voted for me to do when they elected me student body president."

While I feel for the respective student body presidents, and perhaps the school board's policy went too far, the fact remains that the policy exists to ensure that the consent decree is followed. I personally would be fine with having the other students speak, with the knowledge that they might face legal sanctions if they attempted to offer a prayer, but if the school board wants to be overly cautious, that is their prerogative.

Above all, though, this is not a freedom of speech issue. I've said it before and I'll say it again: even constitutional rights are not absolute. Your right to free speech may be restricted, as in the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It's also restricted when it may infringe on another right that is deemed to take precedence: in this case, the right of one or a handful of student speakers to say their piece as compared with the rights of all attendees, Christian and non-Christian alike, not to have Christianity (to be blunt) shoved in their faces.

The statements of activists like Rev. Rogers and Rev. Cotten inflame the controversy. A better course would be to explain, patiently and thoroughly, to their parishioners that the consent decree only forbids organized prayer, and that individual, private prayer remains, as it always has been, perfectly legal. But when there's a chance to demonize the ACLU and "liberal thinking," I guess some folks just can't resist a shot at media stardom.

UPDATE (4:25 pm 5/23/09): By the way, there's a legal and valid way for the pastors and their supporters to get their way on this. Just get a constitutional amendment passed. I promise not to argue with you anymore if you do it.

Santa Rosa teachers get "stimulated" ... but are they still wingnuts?

Last week, I mused on the curious phenomenon taking place in Santa Rosa County, a highly wingnutty outpost deep in America's Taint™, wherein a number of teachers who, based on extrapolation from personal observation, largely are far-right Republicans would have their jobs preserved by the stimulus money provided by President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress. I asked rhetorically whether or not those teachers might revise their dislike of Obama and Democrats somewhat, seeing as they were responsible for saving their livelihoods.

Well, yesterday the county school board officially voted to scale back planned personnel cuts, restoring almost 100 positions that would have been lost but for the stimulus funding made possible by Democrats.

"We have added back 70 teacher positions and 27 educational support positions because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment funding," said Lewis Lynn, assistant superintendent for human resources.

The new staffing plan is an opportunity to bring back more people, said Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick.

"As we evaluate stimulus dollars and begin to put them to use, our focus is to recommit to as many teachers and educational support personnel as we can," he said.

The district has been allotted $7.5 million for Title I schools and Exceptional Student Education. That allowed board members to create 51.5 positions earlier this month.

While it's true that these positions are funded for just two years, making them uncertain beyond that point (and raising the concern of the local teachers' union), the fact is that 97 people ultimately have President Obama to thank for saving their jobs. And based on what I know, again, from personal observation, of those 97, it would be a conservative estimate (no pun intended) to conclude that 70 of them are staunch, anti-Obama Republicans. Even though the 97 have yet to be identified, I think that's a statistically sound presumption.

I'd sure love to hear from the 70 teachers and staff how they feel about the president now.

The big question: will wingnuts who benefit from stimulus money still hate Obama?

Florida governor and now U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist (R-Coppertone) took a lot of heat from the more conservative side of his party when he bucked the trend of GOP governors in neighboring states (like Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Mississippi's Haley Barbour) and welcomed with open arms the federal stimulus money offered to Florida through President Obama's economic recovery program. What this has done in part, though, is save a number of jobs in various areas of state government, including K-12 education.

So, naturally, I'm interested to see whether the wingnuts who (as I know from personal experience and observation) make up a significant majority of teachers in, say, Santa Rosa County, might change their minds a bit about the Evils of Obama. My prediction: nope, not a chance.

Seriously, though, what's a wingnut teacher to do? I mean, imagine that you're a typical teacher* in America's Taint™. You voted for (and quite possibly campaigned on your own time for) McCain and you hate Obama because he's a socialist (and, in some cases, because of his race). You would have gone to the tea parties if you could have gotten the day off work. You've established an entire career based on earning government money (from the taxpayers) but you nevertheless think taxation is evil and everything ought to be privatized.

But you were going to be laid off thanks to severe budget cuts in your county ... until the $1.8 billion of stinulus money to Florida for education came through. Suddenly millions of dollars were directed to your county, and your job is going to be saved ... thanks to the Obama administration! (Recall that the Bush crime syndicate's proposed stimulus would have directed the vast majority of funding to Wall Street and other corporations to prop up the failed theory of "supply-side" or "trickle-down" economics ... so, under Bush, no job for you.) More than 50 such jobs are being restored in Santa Rosa County alone**.

"By and large, this is great news because we are saving some jobs and adding some jobs," said Ed Gray, board chairman. "But it can easily be misinterpreted as we are creating positions we should not be or saving jobs we should not be. What we have before us is what the law requires."

Board members have approved cutting 260 teacher and 103 educational support positions. They will receive a revised staffing plan at the May 21 meeting.

The district has yet to receive its stimulus money but it is expected this month, said Doug Dillon, assistant superintendent for finance.

Stimulus funding is only for two years, and there are strict guidelines on how it can be used, said Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick.

"We are not being given millions of dollars to do with as we want to," he said.

Santa Rosa has about 500 annual contract teachers — those with three years or less experience — waiting to learn if they will be rehired.

"The decisions will be made by principals based on the needs of their schools," said Lewis Lynn, assistant superintendent for human resources.

Well, I've got to hand it to Ed Gray, board chairman: at least he's being more or less ideologically consistent by saying, basically, "yeah, we're taking federal money, but only because we have to, not because we want to." But, then again, we're not talking about Mr. Gray's job here; if he wants to continue to be wingnutty, he can do so without hypocrisy in this instance.

But what about you, Mr./Ms. Laid Off Wingnut Teacher? Are you going to embrace the Obama stimulus and denounce the archaic, destructive economic policies of the Bush crime syndicate that got us into this mess in the first place? Like I said above: I think I already know the answer to that question.

---

* Not all teachers are like this. But most are. Trust me.

** This isn't anywhere near enough for all the cut jobs to be saved. But it's better than nothing ...

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 3 — Federal judge approves consent decree

Yes, it's time once again to visit Santa Rosa County, affectionately known hereabouts as "The Land That Time Forgot." 

As you may recall from a previous episode, a local high school had sponsored a Christian baccalaureate service, but following a lawsuit by the ACLU, the county school board entered into a consent decree whereby schools agreed to avoid sponsorship of religious events in the future.  Local pastor Matt Cotten, however, couldn't grasp the fact that the school board voluntarily accepted the need to stop organizing official religious events, so he created a website and a rally to rail against his strawman, namely, government suppression of Christianity (never mind that no such suppression occurred or will occur).

Well, yesterday a federal court approved the provisions of the consent decree, effectively putting them into effect.  And, naturally, Rev. Cotten won't, or can't, accept that the Constitution prevailed over the Bible, as it rightfully should.

School officials now are prohibited from promoting or endorsing prayers during school functions and from organizing school functions at religious venues. The consent decree must be distributed to all employees.

"The court has ensured that decisions about religion will be left in the hands of families and faith communities and not public school officials," said Benjamin Stevenson, an American Civil Liberties Union of Florida attorney based in Pensacola.

The ACLU and ACLU of Florida sued the district in August on behalf of two unnamed Pace High School students. The students claimed school officials regularly promoted religion and led prayers at school events.

District officials admitted the allegations. Board members signed a consent decree in March that listed steps the district will take to end the violations.

School Board Chairman Ed Gray said they intend to abide by the judge's order.

[...]

The Rev. Matt Cotten, minister of education and outreach at Pine Terrace Baptist Church in Milton, said he is not surprised a judge would sign the order.

"The representation for the county failed to defend our rights well," he said. "The wording is sufficiently convoluted to distract from the intent of the Constitution while appearing not to infringe upon our rights."

Today, Cotten plans to have the OK2Pray.org Rally for Education at Milton High School.

"I believe in everyone's right to worship, pray, not worship or not pray," he said. "I stand, and will continue to stand, for freedom."

The rally can be on Milton High's grounds because it is not sponsored by the school or school system representatives and is on a Saturday, district officials said.

Okay, what exactly is it you don't understand, Rev. Cotten, about separation of church and state? I thought I went over this last time for you, very slowly, but apparently it didn't sink in.

This has nothing to do with how the County's attorneys represented "your" rights, Rev. Cotten. Put simply, there is no right to organized prayer in public schools!  The framers of the Constitution clearly intended for the First Amendment to protect against any governmental establishment -- i.e., sponsorship -- of religion, and that's exactly what this consent decree is designed to achieve.  Religion has no place in government in the United States; we are not and never have been a "Christian" nation, any more than we are a "Jewish" nation or a "Buddhist" nation or a "Muslim" nation.  We are a nation that recognizes and protects the rights of all people to worship as they wish, or not at all, and this includes the right to be free from the imposition of a particular religious belief by the state.

Yes, you advocate that it's "okay to pray," and of course it is.  But there is a distinction between organized prayer or other religious expression and individual expressions thereof.  It really isn't that hard to grasp ... but it's outlined in the consent decree itself (PDF) for you if you need a bit of a refresher ... as it appears you and your allies do.  If you truly believe in the rights of all people to pray or not to pray as they wish, then you certainly should understand the exclusionary nature of the old baccalaureate service to those who might not agree with the Christian beliefs expressed there.

Anyway, the courts have spoken and the law has been upheld.  Hopefully, despite the wishes of the folks at the Milton High rally this afternoon, who apparently want the Constitution to be ignored, this will be the end of it.

Pace: the final frontier, chapter 2 — Where prayer in school just won't go away

A month ago, I told you about the Florida Panhandle community of Pace and its peculiar breed of batshit crazy fundamentalist Christians -- you know, the ones who seem never to have heard of the U.S. Constitution? Well, those folks are back in the news again, and I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that they still don't understand the concept of separation of church and state!

Instead, they're holding a big ol' "Rally for Education," conveniently ignoring the fact that public education and religion ought to have nothing to do with each other, and they're claiming that they have the First Amendment on their side, not those heathens led by the ACLU:

"We will educate people on their rights according to the First Amendment and express the heritage of our country in regard to freedom of religion," said [the Rev. Matt] Cotten, minister of education and outreach at Pine Terrace Baptist Church in Milton. "I believe you can peacefully express your religion any place, any time."

The rally is in response to a federal lawsuit filed in August by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of two unnamed Pace High students who objected to Santa Rosa School District personnel promoting religious activity in the classroom and at school events.

The School District admitted the allegations, and a consent decree spelling out the steps the district will take to end the violations was signed this month. It still must be reviewed by a federal judge.

Tallahassee attorney J. David Marsey, who represented the district in the suit, noted at the time that the agreement stops only School District-sanctioned prayer.

"Nothing prevents our kids from praying," Marsey said.

But Cotten, a father of two, one of whom is a Pace High sophomore, still objects to the limits imposed by the consent degree.

"I had to do something," he said.

A former computer engineer, he set up a Web site, www.ok2pray.org.

"Groups such as the ACLU are working overtime to destroy our rights and civil liberties as Christians in America," he writes on the site. "We believe it is time for Christians to stand up and take a stand peacefully but with strength and perseverance."

Okay, Rev. Cotten, let's go over this nice and slowly so you can understand: Which part of "pray anytime and anywhere you want, just not in an organized fashion in a public school" do you not like? If you have to "do something," why is it demonstrate against the Constitution and use some perverted reading of the First Amendment to claim that you have free speech rights to organized school prayer?

Maybe you didn't pick this up in law school, but since I did, I'll try to explain briefly. The First Amendment does provide for freedom of speech, but like all freedoms we as Americans enjoy, there are certain limits to them. As I like to say by way of example, my right to swing my fist ends at your face; at that point, I'm violating your rights. Similarly, your right to say anything you like -- to preach the Gospel, for example -- ends on public school property, because American jurisprudence has determined that people who are not Christians (and yes, Rev. Cotten, believe it or not, they do exist -- even in Pace) shouldn't have to be subjected to your prayers.

The bottom line, as Mr. Marsey, the Tallahassee attorney quoted above, already explained, is that you can "peacefully express your religion any place, any time." Indeed, no one is stopping anyone from praying! But the part that you apparently can't get through your skull is that you just can't organize prayer in public schools! Pray in your churches ... pray in your homes ... pray in the park ... hell (oops, sorry!), even tell your kids to pray in school! But remember that the school can't sponsor or organize the prayers -- that's pretty much the only restriction. And for those students or staff members who may be Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist or agnostic or atheist or whatever, that's the fair and appropriate way to do things.

And this might surprise you, Rev. Cotten -- even the ACLU believes you have the right to pray!

The ACLU supports everyone's right to pray, said Benjamin Stevenson, staff attorney for Florida.

"We continue to fight for the liberty to worship without undue impediments from the government," he said. "Inherent in religious liberty is the freedom from government actors using their official position to harness the government's resources and advantages to promote their own personal religious beliefs."

[...]

ACLU officials are pleased the participants will exercise their First Amendment rights, Stevenson said.

"More, not less, dialogue preserves our democracy," he said.

So, please, Rev. Cotten, understand that no one is trying to proscribe religion, and the reasonable restrictions adopted by the Santa Rosa County School Board do nothing -- NOTHING -- to restrict your rights to prayer. It just doesn't belong in our public schools.

(See -- I'll bet you thought I was going to tell Rev. Cotten to shut the fuck up. I really can be civil after all!)

Pace: the final frontier

Just when I think northwest Florida can't possibly get wingnuttier, I encounter something else that proves me wrong.

The small community of Pace sits in Santa Rosa County about 10 miles north of Pensacola, right beside the county seat of Milton. Actually, drivers heading east along US 90 would be hard-pressed to tell where Pace ends and where Milton begins, so seamless is the succession of big-box stores, fast food eateries, strip malls, and, of course, churches. Yes, Pace is smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt of America's Taint™, and some of its residents apparently feel that religion somehow trumps federal law ... despite, oh, a freaking Constitution to the contrary.

The biggest news in Pace recently, other than the Pace High boys' basketball district title and the start of high school baseball season, has been the ruling by U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers, in a lawsuit by the ACLU, that a Christian baccalaureate service for Pace High School graduating seniors could not be organized by school officials, as it has been in the past. (The service traditionally was organized by the school but conducted "at a variety of local churches" over the years, according to the linked article.) Naturally, this has sent the heavily Christian community there into a tizzy, since they clearly can't imagine how anyone could be offended by such a practice ... or they don't care.

Pace-area pastors, led by Rev. Joey Rogers of Pace Assembly of God Church, have banded together to plan and provide the baccalaureate service this year, but despite the nearly unnoticeable transition from a school-organized to a church-organized activity, some Paceans (Paceites? Pacers? Pace cars?) aren't satisfied. Exhibit A in the wingnut whinefest is local resident Russell Tafuri, whose letter to the editor appeared in yesterday's Pensacola News Journal. And the cognitive dissonance is jarring:

Thank you, Rev. Rogers, for standing up and doing what's right for our Pace High School seniors! ("ACLU suit spurs change," Feb. 3.)

The question of Pace High School administrators blurring the separation of church and state is ludicrous. Pace has come to be known as a small-town, family-values oriented and religious community. According to Wikipedia, a baccalaureate "is a celebration which honors a graduating senior class from a college or high school. The event is often, but not necessarily, of a religious nature."

"Often, but not necessarily!" The ACLU suit, albeit absurd, has created much ado, brought many emotions to life, and bound the community stronger. The result? An increase in support for the baccalaureate and other community functions for what they are — exhibits of good moral character and fundamental decency in a God-worshipping community, all of which have been either lost or diluted in today's society.

Preservation of these as a way of life in the Pace community is being threatened by the "big city" ideals and numerous litigious parties. This New York City native settled in Pace to get back to what this country was based on — small-town values, one nation, under God. So sue me!

Well, Mr. Tafuri, your ignorance must truly be bliss. Never mind the fact that you cite Wikipedia -- fuckin' Wikipedia* -- to back up your point. (I can go on there right now and change the definition of "baccalaureate" to read "a celebration which honors Satan and his minions" if I want, and it would be just about as reliable.) If you want to live in a "small-town, family-values oriented and religious community" (syntax error!), of course that's fine. But you see, Russ (may I call you Russ?), under federal law, state entities -- like the public schools -- are forbidden from establishing a religion. And having a school-sponsored religious service is about as "establishing" as you can get, pal. Oh, and read your American history, please: this country was not founded on "one nation, under God" -- a phrase that didn't appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1950s, I might add ...

Anyway, your screed against "often, but not necessarily" fails miserably as well (and I don't mean just because it's from fuckin' Wikipedia). First of all, if a service is "often" religious, it still can't be organized by the school. Secondly, this particular service for Pace High School isn't just "often" religious -- it's completely religious, and completely Christian to boot.

Look, Russ, I've no complaints if you want to worship your God or sacrifice goats or have the laying on of tongues or whatever it is that you do. But you need to keep that in your churches and homes, not in the public schools. As the ACLU's Florida staff attorney said, "Parents and religious leaders properly teach our children religion and faith. Religion is too precious to be left in the hands of school officials."

Similarly, Russ, education is too precious to be left in the hands of ignorant tools like you. But please enjoy the baccalaureate service this May ... handled by the churches, not the schools, as the Constitution requires.

---

* I just thought I'd throw a few F-bombs in here for you, Russ ... since you're from NYC, it should make you feel right at home.