Christian Extremists Disrupt Hindu Senate Invocation

You know, just as I try to somewhat prove Pat Condell wrong about his perceptions of Christians, this happens:



It just goes to prove Everybody Loves A Holy War.

Losing the American Dream

Go and watch the clips from Boston Legal over at Independent Christian Voice and then think about what it means to be an American.

Religion in Public Schools: Do Students Have A Prayer?

This is a reprint of a paper I wrote either during law school or soon after. I am noticing that there is still a lot of confusion regarding religious expression in public situations. There may have been some changes to the law since then, but I don't think that any changes have been dramatic.

There has been much confusion in recent years concerning school prayer. Some have argued that the courts have declared schools "religion free zones." Others have maintained that the law of church and state is so muddy that ordinary teachers, principals, administrators or school board members cannot understand them. The former is simply a misinterpretation of the law. The latter, while having some justification, is still incorrect. While it is true that many school officials, because of their busy schedules, do not know the law as well as they should, the law is not as complicated as it might first seem.

State Action and the Establishment Clause

In order to understand the law concerning separation of church and state, it is important to grasp the concept called "state action." State action arises when an agent of the government abridges the rights of an individual. In the present case, since teachers and others in the education establishment are agents of the state, any action they take on behalf of the government can produce state action for the purposes of constitutional limitations.

One constitutional limitation placed on the government is that it may not advance nor inhibit religion. The main test applied to the Establishment Clause is the Lemon v Kurtzman [1] test (hereinafter the Lemon test). The Lemon test is a three-prong test. The three prongs are:

1. The statute (or other government action or policy) must have a secular purpose.

2. Its primary effect or purpose must neither advance nor inhibit religion.

3. The statute (or policy) must not foster an excessive entanglement between church and state.

A few cases have come out since Lemon that suggest the Supreme Court is unhappy with the Lemon test. In Lee v Weisman [2], the Court did not reject the Lemon test, but it at least modified it. In Lee, the school invited a rabbi to give a "nonsectarian" prayer as part of an official graduation ceremony. The Court held that "including clergy who offer prayers as part of an official public school graduation ceremony is forbidden by the Establishment Clause." [3] The Court reasoned that the practice at least suggests at strong endorsement of religion if not an outright compulsion to participate in a religious activity. The Court rejected the argument that the complainant was not compelled to attend. The court pointed out that "in this society, high-school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions, and a student is not free to absent herself from the exercise in any of the real sense of the term 'voluntary.'" [4]

In spite of Lee, the Lemon test is still the dominant test. The question that most often arises among teachers and parents, among others, is what kind of religious expression does the law permit? A pamphlet has been published by a coalition of groups that represent the whole spectrum of this debate. It is called Religion In The Public Schools: A Joint Statement Of Current Law. It was published in April, 1995 and it gives a brief outline of the law as it is applied today.

All of the main cases have dealt with state actors or actions that violate the Establishment Clause. However, the First Amendment does not restrict the actions of purely private actors. If there is no state action, there is no constitutional violation. For instance, a student can pray individually or with their peers as long as it is not disruptive [5]. Students can discuss religious topics or issues as long as the others are willing listeners [6]. As long as a student's religious activity is not carried out in a harassing or disruptive manner, it does not fall within the scope of the Establishment Clause. As a side note, it must be pointed out that religious speech is subject to the same time, place, and manner regulation as any other speech.

A more complicated issue is whether students may initiate a prayer at graduation on their own. Courts have split on this issue (mainly because the other students are a captive audience). (However, school officials may not delegate the duty to a student or student organization because under the principles of Agency, you cannot have someone else do what you are prohibited from doing yourself.)

Another issue that has arisen is whether a "moment of silence" is permissible. One case that mandated a moment of silence "for the purpose of meditation or voluntary prayer" was struck down by the Supreme Court [7]. This was primarily because it failed the first and second prongs of the Lemon test. Its purpose was not secular, and it had the primary effect of advancing religion. However, it might be possible to pass a law that required a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day as long as the Lemon guidelines are met.

Conclusion

The main thing to keep in mind is that agents of the state (in this case school officials) cannot further or hinder religious expression. The restrictions contained in the Establishment Clause do not apply to private parties. Therefore, students who act on their own can legally express their religious convictions as long as it is not disruptive or harassing."

[1] 403 U.S. 602 (1970).
[2] 112 S.Ct. 2649 (1992).
[3] Id.at 2650.
[4] Id.at 2651.
[5] Religion in the Public Schools: A joint statement of current law, 1.
[6] Id.
[7] Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

Congress May Restore Habeas Corpus

A transcript from mcjoan at Daily Kos:

Olbermann: Supporters of this act, the Military Commissions Act ... point out that other administrations have suspended habeas corpus without destroying the republic. Is this time different, and if so how and why is that pretty much a sophistry argument?

Turley: It's hardly a convincing case that you have to have the collapse of the republic. It says more about the republic than the actions of the earlier presidents. This is a system of government that was designed to be idiot-proof and God knows we've tested that through the years. But it was actually designed for multiple idiots, and it means that we can go a certain period of time with the denial of rights and we have tended to correct that and it looks like we're about to do that now. This was one of the most disgraceful moments of the last Congress and it will be equally disgraceful to see many Republicans vote to fight the effort to bring back the great writ.

Olbermann: ... It is easy to imagine Americans who are patriotic but scared, who could just sort of dismiss habeas corpus and other civil liberties as luxuries that make us weak right now. Explain why that's exactly backwards, why they're not luxuries, why they're necessities that make us strong.

Turley: First of all, habeas corpus is sometimes treated like some trick by a Philadelphia lawyer. It is actually the foundation for all other rights. When the government throws you into a dungeon for what you say or who you pray to, it's habeas corpus that's the right that allows you to see the enforcement of the other rights. So without habeas corpus, the rest of it is just aspirational and meaningless.

The danger when you walk away from these values, these rights that define us have been proven by this president. The greatest irony of the Bush Administration is that his legacy will be to show the dangers of walking away from those rights that define us. We’re very much alone today. He can’t go to Canada without people protesting, Miss America can’t even go to Mexico without being booed. We’re viewed as a rogue nation and it is a dangerous world to live in when you’re alone. In Italy, they're prosecuting in abstentia our own agents. This doesn't make us safer.... It's very interesting that the lesson this president may leave for his successors is that whether you are inclined to walk away from those core rights or not, that is what puts us in the greatest danger.

Olbermann: The right to bear arms, to believe your religion or to not believe any religion at all, to say what you want, these rights get people fired up, no matter what side of the debate they're on. Is not habeas corpus essential to all of them? You don't have that, it doesn't matter what the second amendment says?

Turley: That's right.... all those rights are meaningless [without habeas corpus] because it's habeas corpus that allows you to get to a court who can hear your complaint. So without habeas corpus it's just basically words that have no meaning, and this president has shown the dangers of the assertion of absolute power. He has asserted the right to take an American citizen, declare them unilaterally an enemy combatant and deny them all rights. The courts have said otherwise and now Congress will say otherwise. [Any transcription errors mine.]

And In the "What Are We Fighting For?" Department....

Hat Tip to Oklahoma Lefty for raising awareness of this:

Marine faces loss of Honorable Discharge for marching in protest against the war:

(AP) A U.S. veteran who served in the Iraq war could lose his honorable discharge status after being photographed wearing fatigues at an anti-war protest.

So tell me again: what exactly are we fighting for? I thought the whole idea of fighting for your country was to fight to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States -- especially the First Amendment.

Prior Restraint

Hat Tip to the Huffington Post for this AP report:

On the advice of lawyers, the filmmakers spirited a master copy of "Sicko" outside the United States in case the government tries to seize it. Asked whether the inquiry could prevent the film opening in the U.S. as planned on June 29, [Michael] Moore said: "We haven't even discussed that possibility."

This is just sad. Who would have thought it would come to this? Michael Moore has to send a master copy of the movie Sicko because of the threat that the film will be seized by American authorities.

The legal theory that used to be followed in these cases is called "prior restraint." If you want to read more about this issue, you can find a lot of information on FindLaw.

See also generally "strict scrutiny."

Maybe this will be seen as a publicity stunt (and it might be), but to think that it even has to be considered is cause for alarm. This is America. We are supposed to be secure in our discussions of political matters. Obviously things have regressed enough in the area of civil liberties that some dissenters (such as filmmaker Michael Moore) have to consider extraordinary measures to protect information of political expression.

That should never happen in America. This isn't a potential national security case like the Pentagon Papers, so it should be obvious that an attempt to prevent the movie from opening would be a violation of Moore's constitutional rights.

I Wish This Were an April Fool's Joke....

Glenn Greenwald in an article in today's Salon.com entitled Your modern-day Republican Party, revealed:

Two of the three leading Republican candidates for President either embrace or are open to embracing the idea that the President can imprison Americans without any review, based solely on the unchecked decree of the President. And, of course, that is nothing new, since the current Republican President not only believes he has that power but has exercised it against U.S. citizens and legal residents in the U.S. -- including those arrested not on the "battlefield," but on American soil.

To which a comment by "SteveLG" was left:

On the Bright Side

Those who "hate us for our freedoms" appear to have less reason to do so, every day.

Well said.

I recommend that you read the linked article above.

Hat Tip to Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo.

TPM Muckraker Reports: Former DOJ Official Says Department Was Used To Skew Elections

Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

For the full article, click on the title.

New video by Amnesty USA

I don't agree with everything Amnesty International believes in, but I do like this ad.

I voted today.

If you an Okie, you can start voting today at your County Election Board. This year I only voted for candidates from one political party. I thought about voting for one person from the other party, but I decided it wasn't worth it at the last minute.

Now I just have to wait for the election returns Tuesday night.

Wherever you are, don't forget to vote!

Early Voting Starts Friday in Oklahoma

GENERAL ELECTION EARLY VOTING

You can vote early at your County Election Board office on these days:

Friday, November 3, 8 AM – 6 PM
Saturday, November 4, 8 AM – 1 PM

Monday, November 6, 8 AM – 6 PM

All regular polling places will be open Tuesday, November 7, 2006 7 AM – 7 PM.

Even K-Love's Closer Look is asking whether Christians should only be Republican

Listen to the second segment of the October 30, 2006, Closer Look show from the nationwide K-Love radio station. The interviewer asks questions of representatives of both political parties. Most of the interviewees are conservative (2 Republicans and 1 conservative Democrat), but this probably reflects the ratio of Christians nationwide. Religion is a natural conservative force in society. But they did at least interview one moderate-liberal among the group.

I think in the coming years more Christians will start to listen to the interests of the Christian Left. It is unquestionably part of the great tradition of Christian thought throughout the centuries to push for more justice for the weakest members of society.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLhHzbnHAOM

I have posted both what is supposed to be an embedded video and a link to the same on YouTube just in case. It is a video of a local minister here in Oklahoma City named Dr. Robin Meyers, who is the pastor of Mayflower Congregational Church, which is a Universal Church of Christ (UCC) congregation. The UCC is known for its controversial advertisements which were censored by the major networks. Dr. Meyers also writes a regular column for the Oklahoma Gazette, a weekly newspaper that gives a lot of information about local arts and politics. I don't agree with everything Rev. Meyers says (I am not a pantheist -- that is to say, I don't think there are many paths to God), but the points about a country's movement toward fascism are worth listening to.

Keith Olbermann on the Death of Habeas Corpus

I don't know if the link above will work. If it does not, please let me know.

In the game of chess, there is a saying: "the threat is greater than its execution." As applied to the threat being used to justify eliminating Habeas Corpus (terrorism) is greater than its execution (actually blowing up things). The response (elimination of our civil liberties in response to security concerns) is a result that could not have have been achieved without the threat.

But we should be reminded of a saying attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

For more on the basics of Habeas Corpus see this entry at Answers.com (particularly the entry from the Legal Encyclopedia).

The End of Habeas Corpus?

***Updated link above***

It's not up yet, but Keith Olbermann had a segment on Tuesday night's show (October 10, 2006) regarding the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress seeking to abolish the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This ought to shock every American. The Great Writ, as it is called in legal circles, is the foundation upon which freedom in America is based.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

There is no rebellion here in America (yet). There is no foreign invasion, either. As for Al Qaeda, they are just ordinary criminals whose motive is to create some fantasy "caliphate."

If Congress abolishes the Writ of Habeas Corpus, we won't be on a "slippery slide toward dictatorship" as former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor called it. We will be there already.

The mere fact the Republicans are seriously talking about this ought to be enough to severely punish them at the polls in November. If we get there in time.