Our Conscience

Kagan joins liberal bloc but the Wall loses another brick

2011-04-22T19:13:00.000-07:00

"Today’s decision devastates taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause cases."

Jackson Quote

2011-04-22T19:07:00.000-07:00

"My evangelistic brethren confuse an objection to compulsion with an objection to religion. It is possible to hold a faith with enough confidence to believe that what should be rendered to God does not need to be decided and collected by Caesar." -Justice Jackson, Zorach v. Clauson, 1952.

Sotomayor Joins Liberal Bloc as SCOTUS upholds cross

2010-05-04T18:27:00.000-07:00

Although on the losing side, Justice Sotomayor joined 4 Justices known to favor a strong Separation between Church and State. She joined Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion with whom Justice Ginsburg also joined stating the following:

In my view, the transfer ordered by §8121 would not end government endorsement of the cross for two independently sufficient reasons. First, after the transfer it would continue to appear to any reasonable observer that the Government has endorsed the cross, notwithstanding that the name has changed on the title to a small patch of underlying land. This is particularly true because the Government has designated the cross as a national memorial, and that endorsement continues regardless of whether the cross sits on public or private land. Second, the transfer continues the existing government endorsement of the cross because the purpose of the transfer is to preserve its display. Congress’ intent to preserve the display of the cross maintains the Government’s endorsement of the cross.

Summary of the break down by Justice:

Kennedy, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., joined, and in which Alito, J., joined in part. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Sharp debate at high court over cross on US land

2009-10-07T20:34:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As the Supreme Court weighed a dispute over a religious symbol on public land Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia was having difficulty understanding how some people might feel excluded by a cross that was put up as a memorial to soldiers killed in World War I.

"It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead," Scalia said of the cross that the Veterans of Foreign Wars built 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. "What would you have them erect?...Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?"

Peter Eliasberg, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer arguing the case, explained that the cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and commonly used at Christian grave sites, not that the devoutly Catholic Scalia needed to be told that.

"I have been in Jewish cemeteries," Eliasberg continued. "There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

There was mild laughter in the packed courtroom, but not from Scalia...

You can read the entire transcript of the oral arguments here.

NPR: High Court Weighs Legality Of Memorial Cross

2009-10-06T21:40:00.000-07:00

A white cross erected on a rock outcropping on federal land in California's Mojave Desert is at the heart of a Supreme Court case about the government's display of religious symbols.

Critics say the cross violates the Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion. The case will be argued Wednesday.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars' Death Valley post first built the cross at Sunrise Rock in 1934 to honor Americans who died in combat in World War I. The most recent version of the cross was erected 11 years ago by a man named Henry Sandoz.

Neither the VFW nor Sandoz ever owned the land where the cross is located — nor did they have permission to build on the land.

But in 1999, a Buddhist asked the National Park Service for permission to erect a Buddhist shrine on federal land near the cross. The agency refused, setting in motion a series of events in the courts and Congress, culminating in Wednesday's Supreme Court hearing.

Justice Sotomayor's first Church and State decision: Salazar v. Buono (orals begin 10/07/2009)

2009-08-26T21:51:00.000-07:00

On October 7th 2009 the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in what will be Justice Sotomayor's first Establishment Clause case as a Justice. This case is also a growing battleground in what already is a major fight involving all the usual groups aligning for and against this application of one of our most cherished and important legal principles, the Separation Church and State.

The Case:
Salazar v. Buono, 08-472
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-472.htm

Petition for a writ of certiorari was granted by at least four Justices on Feb 23 2009.

Ten Commandments removed from Jackson Co. courthouse

2009-07-22T20:11:00.000-07:00

Displays of the Ten Commandments in the Jackson County Courthouse have been removed in an effort to help resolve a federal lawsuit.

The county has not filed a response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit that says nine framed displays throughout the courthouse were a violation of First Amendment rights of co-plaintiff Eugene Phillips Jr.

Taking the displays down "will be a big step in getting that resolved," County Attorney George T. Hays said.

According to the lawsuit, Jackson Judge-Executive William O. Smith and the county fiscal court authorized the displays of the commandments in 1999 for "no secular purpose."

Sotomayor, religious freedom and the great unknown

2009-06-13T17:18:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court has triggered considerable hand-wringing on both sides of the culture-war divide over the relationship between religion and government under the First Amendment.

Weeks before Obama's announcement, Jay Sekulow of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice launched a preemptive strike, warning his constituents that Sotomayor has a "very, very strict view of church-state separation." Advocacy groups on the left can only hope Sekulow is right. They worry that Sotomayor won't compensate for the loss of Justice David Souter, a reliable vote for a high wall of separation in case after case.

Souter and his fellow separationists didn't win often on the current Court, but they managed to score an occasional 5-4 victory.

Further thinning of their ranks would make it difficult, if not impossible, to muster five votes for a strict interpretation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

Unless Sekulow has a secret document that will reveal all, Sotomayor's long judicial record on the U.S. District Court level and, since 1998, on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tells us next to nothing about how she views the relationship between church and state. On the establishment clause, she is the great unknown.

More

Obama is right to reach out to nonbelievers

2009-02-04T19:25:00.000-08:00

President Obama's mention of "nonbelievers" in his inaugural address represents an important broadening of the circle of acceptability in American life, an acknowledgement of our growing diversity and a fuller embrace of the principles articulated in our nation's charter documents.

One of the hallmarks of American life, dating to the 17th century, is its religious pluralism.

The Atlantic seaboard during the colonial period was home to everyone from Puritans, Roman Catholics and Dutch Reformed to Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, Swedish Lutherans, Anglicans, Huguenots, Mennonites and Schwenckfelders. Jews arrived in New Amsterdam in 1654, refugees from South America after the Portuguese takeover of Recifé.

Somehow it all worked, especially in the crucible of religious pluralism in the Middle Colonies: New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, where William Penn launched his "Holy Experiment" of religious toleration.

In the context of the New World, these religious groups learned to coexist with remarkably little conflict, and when it came time to configure the new nation, the founders in their wisdom elected not to designate any group as the state religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," the First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads.

This provision set up a kind of free market for religion in America, allowing religious groups to compete in a marketplace unfettered by government interference. Indeed, American history is littered with religious entrepreneurs (to extend the economic metaphor) who have peddled their wares in this marketplace and thereby contributed to the vigor and vitality of American religious life...

More here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/04/balmer.nonbelievers/index.html

About the author: Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, and a visiting professor at Emory University. His most recent book is "God in the White House: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush."

"Freedom of Conscience"

2008-12-30T23:48:00.000-08:00

“At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.” WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

In the hands of the people

2008-12-08T22:52:00.001-08:00

There is a nativity scene hanging from my Christmas tree in my living room. I don't need to obtain the blessing of the State and hang it on public land. This is precisely where our Constitution wants religion, in the hands of the people, not the State. Nothing is more vital to religious liberty than that.

Suggested response for the warriors of paternalism

2008-12-07T22:36:00.000-08:00

Let me suggest an appropriate response for those of us in the majority who feel provoked by speech that differs from our own: Pray diligently that the Constitution protects infidels when they express their viewpoints because when viewpoint discrimination becomes the law of the land, our viewpoint is next.

How establishment hurts religion and society: A holiday reminder for non-separationists

2008-12-07T00:27:00.000-08:00

When government provides a public forum for religious expression, it can not just invite a particular sect. The number of those offended by that endorsement is irrelevant. How many does it take? Answer: One.

Your own freedom weakens the minute you attempt to limit the umbrella of liberty to your majority. You end up damaging both Christianity and our democracy.

If as a Christian you could obtain the State's sole preference toward your beliefs and symbols, what would happen? Would you obtain more converts? Would you spread your beliefs and save the world from all the infidels? No, you would burn your own power and influence, divide even your own peers, create a system that honors paternalism, and then get to watch your brothers and sisters sail to a new land.

Who are the enemies of religious expression at the public square?

2008-12-05T17:01:00.000-08:00

(CNN) -- An atheist sign criticizing Christianity that was erected alongside a Nativity scene was taken from the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington, on Friday and later found in a ditch...

The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said. Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."

"I guess they don't follow their own commandments," Gaylor said. "There's nothing out there with the atheist point of view, and now there is such a firestorm that we have the audacity to exist. And then [whoever took the sign] stifles our speech."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State's Letter to President-Elect Obama

2008-11-24T16:48:00.000-08:00

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your recent victory. You are assuming the leadership of our nation at a challenging time, and we are sure there are many people and organizations competing for your attention.

As you prepare to assume office, we would like you to consider the importance of separation of church and state. This principle, enshrined in our First Amendment, is the platform upon which our religious liberty rests. We believe it is vitally important that it not be eroded.

We hope you will show leadership in supporting the separation of church and state. There are several key issues your administration may confront in the coming years. These include:

* ‘Faith-based’ funding of religion: we find it alarming that our nation seems to be moving away from the idea that religion is best supported by individual contributions made voluntarily. Instead, “faith-based” initiatives to fund churches and other ministries with taxpayer dollars are increasingly common. We urge you to oppose such measures.
* Voucher subsidies for religious schools: A federally funded voucher program is currently subsidizing religious and other private schools in the District of Columbia. Voucher programs have been proposed for other states and cities, as well. We urge you to oppose government subsidies for religious education and focus on improving our public schools.
* The composition of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court wields enormous influence over how the First Amendment is interpreted and applied. If you are faced with vacancies on the high court, we hope you will take into account any potential nominee’s views on church-state separation and the role it plays in defending our liberties.
* Church electioneering: Currently, federal tax law prohibits houses of worship and other tax-exempt groups from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. Polls show overwhelming support for this concept. Yet proposals have been introduced in Congress to alter the regulation or do away with it altogether. We urge you to use the power of your “bully pulpit” to oppose such misguided legislation.

These are just some of the church-state issues you might face. We hope you will use your time in office to unite Americans on the need to support the separation of church and state.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

The Staff and Membership of Americans United

Huckabee 4 theocracy

2008-01-15T18:05:00.001-08:00

"But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onHkywYc_1M&v3

The Taliban would be Happy, at least if it were their view of God that was being enshrined into law. Most of our ancestors left Europe to avoid this.

Huckabee encourages churches to violate tax exempt status

2008-01-02T18:18:00.001-08:00

Huckabee today encouraged voters to "hijack your church's bus" to "get people to the caucus who are going to vote for me." Surely he is aware that tax exempt churches can not participate in activities to support a particular candidate.

If he would have said hijack a church bus to assist your neighbors in doing their civic duty by voting it would have been excellent. But if this is an indication of things to come he may be seeking clergy "who are going to vote for me" to turn over their mailing lists and turn their churches into call centers for Jesus/Huckabee. He may find that more religious folks will be voting for Obama or Edwards because of, among many things, his lack of respect for the idea of a religiously neutral government.

The wall separating religion and gov just lost a brick today

2007-06-25T15:42:00.000-07:00

HEIN v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. (No. 06-157) 433 F. 3d 989, reversed.

5-4 (Majority: Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy)

"Ruled that ordinary taxpayers cannot challenge a White House initiative that helps religious charities get a share of federal money." Source

Justice Souter explains the importance:

"The plurality points to the separation of powers to explain its distinction between legislative and executive spending decisions, see ante, at 20–21, but there is no difference on that point of view between a Judicial Branch review of an executive decision and a judicial evaluation of a congressional one. We owe respect to each of the other branches, no more to the former than to the latter, and no one has suggested that the Establishment Clause lacks applicability to executive uses of money. It would surely violate the Establishment Clause for the Department of Health and Human Services to draw on a general appropriation to build a chapel for weekly church services (no less than if a statute required it), and for good reason: if the Executive could accomplish through the exercise of discretion exactly what Congress cannot do through legislation, Establishment Clause protection would melt away." ~Justice Souter, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. More

The REAL War on Christmas

2006-12-06T19:36:00.000-08:00

As the holiday season approaches I am remembering the debate last year about “the war on Christmas.” There were protests denouncing local stores and citizens who chose to show respect to people of other religions by using the phrase “Happy Holidays.”

So this year I have some advise: If you believe so strongly that your religion is the correct one (as people of all religions tend to do) you can best serve and promote it by fighting for the principles that your religion promotes.

I believe that some of the greatest enemies of Christianity call themselves Christians. Christianity isn’t a slogan and it doesn’t need official promotion or the use of coercion to prosper. The real war on Christmas comes from those who ignore the values of Jesus in order to promote the veneer of nominal Christianity.

Unidirectional Separation is no Separation at All

2006-12-03T07:39:00.000-08:00

Local conservatives are repeating more myths about church and state separation. This one is old but still as silly as when I first heard it. "Thomas Jefferson['s letter] dated January 1, 1802... was actually stating that government needs to stay out of the church, not that the church stay out of the government" (anonymous online forum poster "TheDisciple").

What will a church do with a governmental key that will not also lead to an entanglement that impacts the religious practices of others? Notice Madison and Jefferson never mentioned that "the wall" was a half wall half gate depending on the direction of the entanglement.

Student tapes teacher proselytizing in class

2006-11-15T08:45:00.000-08:00

A Kearny High School student has accused a history teacher of crossing the line between teaching and preaching -- and he says he's got the tapes to prove it.

Junior Matthew LaClair, 16, said history teacher David Paszkiewicz, who is also a Baptist preacher in town, spent the first week of class lecturing students more about heaven and hell than the colonies and the Constitution.

LaClair said Paszkiewicz told students that if they didn't accept Jesus, "you belong in hell." He also dismissed as unscientific the theories of evolution and the "Big Bang."

Link

More School Prayer Myths

2006-10-02T23:09:00.000-07:00

Tammie Lombard of Pierce City recently wrote in a Oct 3rd oped in the Joplin Globe that "Some people think it's wrong to have prayer in school, but what can possibly be wrong with youths coming together in a peaceful demonstration and asking the Lord for help?"

Almost no one thinks prayer is wrong in school although many don't like others telling their children how, when, or what to pray, especially the government.

Voices: Violence myth

2006-09-12T18:48:00.000-07:00

Our Conscience

In a recent letter to the editor, Maurice Filson (Globe, Aug. 20) stated that "more than 30 years ago our children could speak the name of God and/or Jesus in our public schools" and that back in those "simple times. ... The largest problem was chewing gum or throwing paper wads."

I promise to stop confronting these myths as soon as they stop being spread.

In 1927, children at Bath Consolidated School in Michigan had to worry about chewing gum, paper wads, and mass murder. They had to worry about the worst case of mass murder in a school in U.S. history, in which three times more children were killed than died at Columbine. This all occurred in that "simple time" when people, according to Maurice, could talk about Jesus in schools.

For the 50th time, what courts have banned has nothing to do with restricting the religious speech of children: "State officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools ..." Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).

Maurice continues that, "Today's secular society prohibits our children from being taught what caused Cain to kill Abel, and killing continues." Our "secular society" (90 percent religious) can teach its children about religion using the most effective means possible: parents.

The government can't even balance its checkbook. Plus, we have run out of colonies in which to escape from state religion.

Here we go Again...

2006-08-20T07:27:00.000-07:00

The following is in response to this oped published in the Joplin Globe Aug 20th 2006.

To bring it closer to home, more than 30 years ago our children could speak the name of God and/or Jesus in our public schools. Those were simple times, remember? The largest problem was chewing gum or throwing paper wads.

"The Bath School disaster was a series of bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in second to sixth grades attending the Bath Consolidated School. The bombings constituted the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history, claiming more than three times as many victims as the Columbine High School massacre." link

We have graduated several levels since then, and we did it by barring prayer and God’s word from our public schools.

That would be really bad if it were true. Here is what court have banned:

"State officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools..." ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

In the United States, any name or book can be freely expounded upon except the Bible and our Lord. And we wonder, “where do the bad guys come from?”

The suggestion is that being religious protects a person from immorality. If that were true the following would have never happened:

And you might not find data like this coming from federal prisons:

Protestant: 27.38%
Catholic: 30.61%
No Preference: 12.55%
Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Census 04-11-2000

Today’s secular society prohibits our children from being taught what caused Cain to kill Abel, and killing continues.

Is there a police man in your house preventing you from teaching your children about religion? Do you need the governments assistance?

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
-Thomas Jefferson

Ignorance Education

2006-04-26T18:54:00.000-07:00

Students will have to obtain a permission slip from their parents in order to attend sex Ed classes if a new Missouri bill passes (HB1075). Since Missouri added sex education requirements teenage pregnancy in Missouri has decreased significantly. I am not 100% sure that sex education would directly decrease teenage pregnancy but I am betting that ignorance will not.

The bill also requires that schools “present scientifically accurate information” including that “at conception… an unborn child's life begins.” Sexual reproduction occurs when life is developed from pre-existing life, from the cells of organisms sometimes known as parents. Life only “begins” in this process in the minds of those who believe that abiogenesis (the generation of life from non-living matter) takes place through supernaturalism at the point of conception. In other words, that a supernatural being micromanages this biological process.

It seems to me that God might be too busy listening to a million or so simultaneous prayers, choosing the winners of sporting events and wars, and altering the path of weather patterns. If I was God I would set in motion physical laws and biological processes that would take care of themselves in order to relax a bit, maybe work on some spiritual matters.

No, I am not criticizing religion in general. I do think it is arrogant to crown our own beliefs as the point of reference as to what is and is not religious. At least we could avoid disguising our beliefs as science and making laws about them.

The Excitement of Doing Nothing

2006-04-07T18:24:00.000-07:00

I am so glad to hear that the Missouri House has passed a proposed constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would make school prayer that is legal completely legal! Those that support it will be accomplishing just as much as those who oppose it. Only during an election year would we get such an opportunity to do absolutely nothing so wonderfully.

Resolution deserves short shrift

2006-03-26T23:57:00.000-08:00

By Edgar Simpson, editor of The Joplin Globe.

A resolution working its way through the Missouri House of Representatives that would designate Christianity as the state’s majority religion is ridiculous and the worst kind of electioneering.

What is the purpose of stating the obvious, unless it really is to somehow stifle some faiths and denominations and launch a wave of unnecessary and debilitating lawsuits?

Other than pandering to certain groups for blatantly political purposes, the resolution carries no weight of law and achieves nothing, other than fanning the already-burning debate of the proper relationship between religion and government...

This resolution should go away, quietly and with no remorse.

Link

All are Welcome to Participate

2006-03-13T22:38:00.000-08:00

The front page “Resolution” story (Globe, March 8), exposes some area politicians to the need for repetition in regard to religion. I love George Washington, the “Father of our Country,” but he was not a communicant of any Christian church. He was a Freemason and a deist. If any readers want to read a good book, read “George Washington and Religion” by Paul F. Boller.

As for repetition, the Globe has been kind enough to allow me to print the following statement from James Madison several times, “Father of the Constitution”:

“Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” (”Detached Memoranda,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).

Readers can easily read Madison’s words on the Internet simply by Google searching “Detached Memoranda.” By the way, Madison attended but was not a communing member of any Christian church, either. Madison, too, was a deist. Madison’s wife, Dolly, did join the Episcopal Church several years after he died.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and embodies the principles upon which the government of the United States is founded. The 1787 founding fathers commanded, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” (Art. 6., Sec. 3.)

The words “church and state” are not in the Constitution. It is a “religious” test that shall not be required, and it is “religion” which shall not be established by law. In 1788, the people of America approved those words. Therefore, about what America really is: A nation wherein citizens of all religions and of none are welcome to participate fully in all of America’s social and political functions. That is the message to which America’s politicians should be resolved.

Gene Garman
Pittsburg, KS

"Religion" is not a State Church

2006-03-13T13:07:00.000-08:00

Conservative religious fundamentalists continue to make the silly claim that the Establishment Clause only prohibits the creation of a state church.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." ~Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I always thought "religion" encompassed more than a church such as beliefs and practices. If the Founders wanted courts to follow the narrow reading of the First Amendment offered by these conservatives would they not have worded it narrowly in the first place?

Show me Teaching, not Preaching

2006-03-05T07:50:00.000-08:00

Verne MacKinney (Joplin Globe, March 5th 2006) voiced support for legislation that would "allow public school districts to offer classes in which the Bible is taught" (SB 736) by calling the Bible “the truth.” Verne should be commended for promoting and advocating for our religious beliefs but I would suggest that seeking a government that shares any religious preference is neither in the best interest of religion or government.

The desire for religious uniformity through State coercion seems to me rather insecure. That type of insecurity does little to inspire converts and in fact pushes them away.

The liberal watchdog group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) has made it clear that “objective study about religion in public schools is legal and appropriate.” This bill makes legal, something already legal. What then is the purpose of this bill? Answer: to prey on public misconceptions about Church and State Separation in order to score political points.

The bill is worded in order to avoid Church and State difficulties in making clear what AU also notes about the law, that Bible classes are appopriate as long as the government action has a "legitimate educational purpose, not a devotional one." I believe that we should trust teachers to have the professionalism to teach and not to preach in the context of a government that is doing the same.

MO House Pushing Boundries of Church and State Separation

2006-03-03T18:48:00.000-08:00

Missouri House Concurrent Resolution 13 "resolves that voluntary prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, and the recognition of a Christian God are not a coalition of church and state." It continues, "our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation." This view of our nation's history can be supported to a degree but do we want the State or the people to express it?

1). Not all of our founding fathers were Christians: "Deism was also influential in late-18th-century America, where Deistic views were held by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. The most vociferous American Deists were Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine" (History Channel, 2006).

2). Voluntary prayer has never been ruled illegal so why include it? Only prayer that has been encouraged, discouraged, or written by the State has been prohibited. Preying on this common misconception is something Republican strategists have became very good at. My concern is the Democrats have allowed them to do so without setting the record strait.

3). "Religious displays on public property" may or may not be constitutional depending on the motivation of the officials. For example, the motivation to teach about the history of law is fundamentally different from promoting one's own religious views via law or official capacity. The content and context of the display is also important. For example, Judge Moore's display with the Protestant version of the 10 commandments is different than the frieze at the Supreme Court which includes Moses, Confucius, and Greek lawmaker Solon.

4). This expression of legislator's views on church and state is protected by the Free Exercise Clause so long as they do not use their official capacity to promote it. This is precisely what they are doing and they are doing a disservice to both government and religion.

The Bible and Political Opportunism in Missouri

2006-02-22T19:42:00.000-08:00

Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Cape Girardeau) has sponsored a bill that would "allow public school districts to offer classes in which the Bible is taught" (SB 736).

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in their Brochure: "Prayer And The Public Schools: Religion, Education, and Your Rights" states the following about bible classes: "The high court has also made it clear, time and again, that objective study about religion in public schools is legal and appropriate." As long as the practice has a "legitimate educational purpose, not a devotional one."

I have just one question: If Bible classes are already constitutionally protected, what is the purpose for Crowell's bill?

Students Can not be Compelled to Stand for the Pledge

2006-02-13T07:44:00.000-08:00

School Districts and their employees may not enforce any type of requirement on students that they stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Asking for parental consent for students to be excused from standing is such a requirement that is prohibited.

In Lipp v. Morris, 579 F.2d 834 (3rd cir. 1978), the court held that, “[t]his mandatory condition upon the student’s right not to participate in the flag salute ceremony is an unconstitutional requirement that the student engage in a form of speech and may not be enforced" (emphasis added). The policy that the court struck down in this case was a New Jersey statute that required students to “show full respect to the flag while the pledge is being given . . . by standing at attention.” In Goetz v. Ansell, 477 F.2d 636, 638 (2nd cir. 1973), the court held that silent non-disruptive expression of belief by sitting down during the Pledge may not be prohibited. In addition, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found that states could mandate that the pledge be recited but did so on the basis that "no pupil was compelled to recite the Pledge, to stand during the Pledge or place his hand over his heart, or to leave if he would not join in, and that no one was penalized in any way for remaining silent and seated." Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 of Wheeling Township, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992).

Orlando Sentinel: Jeb Bush scrambles to save vouchers

2006-01-16T00:18:00.000-08:00

TALLAHASSEE -- In his eighth and final year as the state's chief executive, Jeb Bush is back where he began -- trying to cement his claim to being Florida's "education governor."

When the state Supreme Court earlier this month struck down his private-school voucher program, it left Bush and Republican leaders scrambling not only to rescue the program but to preserve the governor's legacy.

After a series of closed-door huddles during the past week involving lawmakers and, separately, the governor and his advisers, what's emerging as a likely solution is a plan to ask Florida voters in November to change the state constitution and allow taxpayer dollars to flow to private schools.

But even supporters acknowledge that approach is risky.

Political polls have shown lukewarm support for vouchers. The proposed amendment likely would drive Democrats -- the idea's fiercest opponents -- to the polls during an election year with an open governor's race and U.S. Senate contest at stake.

Link

The voluntary character of the private choice to prefer a parochial education over an education in the public school system seems to me quite irrelevant to the question whether the government’s choice to pay for religious indoctrination is constitutionally permissible. Justice Stevens

I do not believe that the “parental choice” aspect of the voucher program sufficiently offsets the concerns I have mentioned. Parental choice cannot help the taxpayer who does not want to finance the religious education of children. It will not always help the parent who may see little real choice between inadequate nonsectarian public education and adequate education at a school whose religious teachings are contrary to his own. It will not satisfy religious minorities unable to participate because they are too few in number to support the creation of their own private schools. It will not satisfy groups whose religious beliefs preclude them from participating in a government-sponsored program, and who may well feel ignored as government funds primarily support the education of children in the doctrines of the dominant religions. And it does little to ameliorate the entanglement problems or the related problems of social division that Part II, supra, describes. Consequently, the fact that the parent may choose which school can cash the government’s voucher check does not alleviate the Establishment Clause concerns associated with voucher programs. Justice Breyer

ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS (00-1751) 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
234 F.3d 945, reversed.

Good Quote from the Dover Case

2005-12-20T14:21:00.000-08:00

"To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions." U.S. District Judge John Jones, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, December 20, 2005.

SWMO Locals Refute an Arguement that was never made, Dishonestly

2005-12-12T10:39:00.000-08:00

Galen McKinley of Joplin (Globe, Dec. 12th) recently expressed concern that the Pledge Protection Act would conflict with our government’s separation of powers by limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts to review specific types of cases. Rather than having a healthy debate about this, some local on-line readers attacked Galen (and liberals in general) for trying to “force the word ‘God’ from everything in this country.”

Not only does that not relate at all to what Galen was saying it distorts a position that Galen did not even express. Social and civil libertarians that support a strong separation of church and state do not generally oppose religion or prayer; they oppose the government’s involvement in them.

We would much prefer that people insert “under God” in anything they like and the government not force teachers to recite what they have chosen to make religious with the force of law. Religion will always be more vibrant when the government leaves its vitality to the people.

Militant Creationists are Beating Scientists Now

2005-12-06T18:06:00.000-08:00

LAWRENCE, Kan. - A professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he sent e-mails deriding Christian conservatives was hospitalized Monday after an apparent roadside beating.

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that two men who beat him were making references to the class that was to be offered for the first time this spring. Originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request.

The class was added after the Kansas Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for elementary and secondary students. "I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me."

One recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies," and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki has apologized for those comments.

More at this Link.

Arrogance in the Ozarks

2005-12-04T18:04:00.000-08:00

In an oped in the Springfield News-Leader Joan Covington of Springfield Missouri makes the case that morality is not possible without her religious beliefs.

Stop and think, folks. Since Bible reading and teaching have been removed from our public areas, crime has increased at an alarming rate. They (the ACLU and others) are greatly responsible for this horrible turn in the minds of people who have no conscience.

Look at what happened the next year when in 1989 the Supreme Court ruled that a Christian nativity scene display at Allegheny County Courthouse in Pittsburg was a violation of the Establishment Clause:

Of course, another graph and court case could be found to support the opposite conclusion. Other factors likely account for greater movement in the national crime rate than upholding the First Amendment.

But, imagine the ethnocentrism and arrogance you have to have in order to make such a strong connection with ones own religious beliefs and the morality of a nation. It was a connection our founders knew well not to make:

“The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State.” ~James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Of course, Joan just couldn't help passing the misinformation that fundamentalists and their conservative allies have been spreading for years. American citizens can pray in public whenever they like. They can read the bible just as they can read anything else. What has been unconstitutional is the actions of the government in making laws and taking actions that promote or favor various religious viewpoints.

The Government's Concerned Deity, is he Yours?

2005-11-24T19:00:00.000-08:00

In my often vain attempts to understand Justice Scalia I can usually reach a provisional understanding of his point of view. I have to admit being a little baffled when I finally had an opportunity to read his dissent in the recent Ten Commandment case. Justice Scalia wrote the following:

"With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists."

Of course Scalia is correct that prejudiced, ethnocentric, and even hateful comments by citizens do not violate the Constitution. The point that he forgets, I think on purpose, is that we are discussing governmental actions and laws, not religious speech by citizens. Scalia and many fundamentalist conservatives constantly prey on this misconception that we separationists are going to try to stop people from saying something religious in public. We want the government to leave religion to us and stay out of it.

But just what is an "unconcerned deity" and more importantly how do we tell what religion posesses the concerned deity? Who should make that decision? The people or the State? If we chose the later we would be no better than soviet communists and the governments that the early American colonists went to great distances to escape from.

A prayer for true religious freedom

2005-11-13T07:37:00.000-08:00

Religious freedom isn't easy — not if it is true freedom.
That point was made explicitly last week when First Amendment lawyer Peter Irons spoke at a Missouri State University public forum about his involvement in the Humansville school district's Ten Commandments case...

The microphone was turned over to students, who asked good questions. The civil discussion continued.

And then a middle-aged gentleman rose. "I will pray for you, Dr. Irons, and all others who are not close to the cross," he said.

That is a dangerous view: Unless you believe as I do, you are damned. Unless the nation believes as I do, it is doomed.

That theme shows up regularly in pronouncements from al-Qaida. It sets off terrorist bombs across the Middle East. It fueled decades of war in Northern Island.

Why would anyone wish that upon the United States?

Yet we have Pat Robertson warning Dover, Pa., that it will suffer God's retribution for voting out a school board that sought to promote religious belief as science. And we have people who applauded the man Tuesday night who believe it is government's role to promote their particular religious belief.

The First Amendment is true wisdom, promising that the government will never force any person to subscribe to a belief against his or her will. Government will not support any religious belief, but neither will it interfere with the individual's right to believe as he or she wishes.

This is why religion is vibrant in this country. It's why Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists and atheists could gather at Missouri State on Tuesday night and talk about religious liberty without anyone being hurt. We could each go home and pray — or not — according to our conscience.

Robert Leger, Editor Springfield News-leader

link

My "Heckler's Veto"

2005-10-17T10:25:00.000-07:00

Marlin Pinnell (Globe, Oct. 17th) states that a federal judge ruled that “the reference to one nation ‘under God’ violates school children’s right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God as their belief.” A reference to “under God” has never been and will never be unconstitutional without a fight from me but the phrase is not what was found unconstitutional. Here is the Judges’ remark in context: “…the school district’s policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of children’s right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God”

Saying “under God,” or “praise Jesus,” is perfectly legal and, in fact, protected, by among other things the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The government forcing teachers and compelling students to recite a given religious assertion is what is improper. While most Christians are ok with the government affirming religious beliefs in America, I suspect they might not so much like it in Iran.

The courts would strike down any legislation declaring America ‘under Jesus’ and Jews would be protected from the government legitimizing anti-Semitism. The real issue in this case is that prejudice against atheists and agnostics has popular support whereas anti-Semitism has got a bit of a bad name. This is why Justice O'Connor referred to objections on Establshment Clause grounds by atheists as a "heckler's veto."

We have the responsibility, Justice O'Connor, to stand up for all minorities, not just those which are considered worthy by a given social context. In fact, history has illustrated that it is the unpopular minorities, which are most vulnerable to mistreatment.

Again?

2005-10-06T17:15:00.000-07:00

Our Conscience

In an Oct. 6th Oped in the Joplin Globe Ray Alexander writes the following:

"Why are we letting the judges take God out of our schools? Why can’t our children quote the Pledge of Allegiance in their classrooms?"

Ray's misunderstanding of judicial action relative to the Establishment Clause is common in Southwest Missouri. Even if atheist Michael Newdow won his case before the Supreme Court, children could still say the pledge in public school, the government would simply not be able to force teachers to recite it. What weakens religion in America are people who desire to use the machinery of the government to promote their apparently insecure beliefs.

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." ~Thomas Jefferson

NYT: Teacher Says Board Effort on Evolution Was Resisted

2005-09-28T17:54:00.000-07:00

Our Conscience

HARRISBURG, Pa., Sept. 27 - Science teachers at the high school in Dover repeatedly resisted the school board's efforts to force them to teach creationism on equal footing with evolution in biology class, according to a former teacher who is among those challenging the board in a landmark trial.

The conflict in Dover grew so heated that in public meetings board members called opponents "atheists," threatened to fire the science teachers and invoked Jesus' crucifixion as a reason to change the curriculum, two witnesses testified on Tuesday.

"We would repeatedly tell them, 'We're not going to balance evolution with creationism. It's an inappropriate request,' " said Bryan Rehm, who once taught physics in Dover and is one of 11 plaintiffs in the suit.

Flying Spaghetti Monster car plaque!

2005-09-26T21:20:00.000-07:00

You can order your Flying Spaghetti Monster car plaque here.

'Intelligent Design' Court Battle Begins

2005-09-26T15:11:00.000-07:00

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- "Intelligent design" is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.

"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," said Eric Rothschild, an attorney representing eight families who are challenging the decision of the Dover Area School District.

For all you Pastafarians

2005-09-18T00:09:00.000-07:00

Wikipedia, the free internet encyclopedia now has an article on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism:

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a satirical parody religion created to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to allow intelligent design to be taught in science classes alongside evolution.

The "religion" has become an Internet phenomenon that has garnered many "followers" of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sometimes referring to themselves as "Pastafarians," a pun on Rastafarians) who claim to have been touched by "His Noodly Appendage" and preach the word of their "noodly master" as the one true religion. Their prayers to "Him" are typically ended by "Ramen", instead of "Amen". Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is primarily the invention of Bobby Henderson, a graduate of Oregon State University with a degree in physics.

Senator Feinstein's comments on Church/State

2005-09-12T19:45:00.000-07:00

And we cannot forget that in American history, Puritans, Baptists, Catholics, Jews and other religious individuals came to this continent looking for a society where they could be free from the persecution they faced in Europe and England.

In response, the Founding Fathers created a balance in the Constitution that provided for freedom of worship as well as for separation of church and state. In their efforts to protect against religious persecution, the Framers established a secular government that would remain separate from religion.

However, these basic principles could be severely weakened or unraveled depending on the Court’s allowing government funding of religious education, prayer in school, and the display of religious symbols on public property and land.

Statement of
The Honorable Diane Feinstein
United States Senator, California

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings
Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be
Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

Student Forced to Stand for the Pledge

2005-08-15T06:46:00.000-07:00

Our Conscience

The following was posted on Democratic Underground:

If you have read the thread I posted last night entitled "Why I won't be saying the pledge tommorow", you know that me and a few friends decided to sit out the pledge today.

We went through with our plan. Although four of us did not stand, the only ones to get referrals were myself and one of the kids that did not stand yesterday either.

We were told to sit in the office to wait for the assistant principle. Our referrals were for defiance. The teacher wrote a description something along the lines of "Refused to stand to show respect to the flag after being told to stand." (It should be noted that I was never told directly to stand...the teacher called my friends to her desk yesterday to talk to them but I never received a direct order that I was defying).

I've heard that while we were in the office the teacher gave a spiel to the class about the importance of standing to "support the troops" during the war on terror. (I wonder what she thinks of Cindy Sheehan?)

After about 15 minutes, she came into the office holding a description of the supreme court case West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette provided to her by one of our friends who didn't get a referral.

Although she didn't read it, she dismissed it immediately. (I kid you not, she actually said that because the ruling was from 1943, it doesn't matter. I was thinking of informing her that they don't expire ^_^.)...

Link

See the recommendations of the National School Boards Association:

"Barnette and its progeny make clear that any school district or state adopting a Pledge of Allegiance policy or law should avoid coercing participation and punishing refusal to participate in any aspect of the flag ritual, including, standing, saluting the flag, and reciting the Pledge. Schools should consider using permissive rather than mandatory language to introduce the recitation of the Pledge—“You may now stand to recite the Pledge,” rather than, “Now we will all stand to recite the Pledge.” Schools may require that non-participants maintain order and decorum appropriate to the school environment. Schools may allow students choosing not to participate in the Pledge to leave the classroom, but they should not require them to do so. By making participation voluntary, schools not only will be avoiding First Amendment litigation, but will also be teaching children that tolerance of dissenting views does not threaten American values, but rather strengthens them."

Burns, Thomas. (2002). The Pledge of Allegiance: Teaching Tolerance for Political and Religious Dissent. National School Boards Association's Council of School Attorneys: ISSN: 1069-0190

Why do teachers do this? The first reason is that they are ignorant of the law. The second is that they confuse patriotism with conformity. They make the Pledge a tool of oppression rather than an affirmation of our national values.

Garman: Jefferson’s letter

2005-08-07T07:57:00.000-07:00

Our Conscience

A July 17 letter (“Phrase misused”) abused the court opinion in Reynolds v. U.S. That 1879 court unanimously declared that President Thomas Jefferson’s 1801 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut was acceptable as a “declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment, which is why the court chose to use it.

No one who has done their homework says the words “church and state” are in the Constitution. However, it cannot be denied the word “religion” is in the Constitution, and it is a distortion to suggest “religion” does not include church.

Nevertheless, the Founding Father and member of the First Congress who personally helped write the First Amendment did use proper terminology when he wrote: “Strongly guarded ... is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States” (James Madison, “Detached Memoranda,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).

Go to a university library and read it, or search for “Detached Memoranda” on the Internet.

Gene Garman

Pittsburg, Kan.

Teaching About Religion In Public Schools: Worldview Education

2005-07-29T13:46:00.000-07:00

Teaching About Religion In Public Schools: Worldview Education

This is an excellant website for information on how to approach religion and non-religious thought in education and the laws that apply to using religion in schools. Great unbiased information.

Judge gives offenders option of church

2005-06-04T16:02:00.000-07:00

Judge gives offenders option of church
May 31, 2005

LONDON, Ky. -- A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab -- a practice some say violates the separation of church and state. More here.

National Day of Hypocrisy Comes to Joplin

2005-05-09T17:28:00.000-07:00

Our Conscience

The Joplin Globe reported May 6th that a group of about 12 people gathered at a Webb City public park (by the praying hands) and "clasped hands in circles of prayer." The article continued: "This is the 54th year that the observance [the National Day of Prayer], established by an act of Congress, has folded the hands of participants on the first Thursday in May." They went on to interview participants who made the ussual christocentric statements with good intention. However, they forget the very teachings of Jesus as well as the danger of any governmental interference in matters of religion.

Matthew 6:5 "And now about prayer. When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to pray publiclyon street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I assure you, that is all the reward they will ever get. Matthew 6:6 But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father secretly.

“The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State.” ~James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Justice Moore Can Promote his Religion without Government Welfare

2005-05-02T12:24:00.000-07:00

Our Conscience

Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore will get to see the Ten Commandment monument (that he once placed at the Alabama Capital) at his church, according to news reports. Our Conscience believes that is precisely where it belongs.

Globe Watch: Gordon W. Thompson, What on Earth?

2005-03-22T07:55:00.000-08:00

Gordon Thompson (Globe March 22) tells us that public school students are “forbidden to pray to God out loud” while students are allowed to “shout God’s name in curse words all day long.” Of course the “atheistic judges” get the blame. Here we go again.

In 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that it is impermissible for “state officials” to compose prayers and require that they be recited. They never said students may not pray. They don’t let them cuss, none that I have ever known.

Were the above Justices atheists? Justice Black who wrote the opinion was Baptist. Justice Douglas who wrote a concurring opinion was Presbyterian. The other Justices who voted with the majority were as follows: Justice Clark (Presbyterian), Justice Warren (Protestant), Justice Harlan (Presbyterian), Justice Brennan (Catholic).

Gordon Thompson asks where are the Baptists, Catholics, and Lutherans, etc. on this issue? They have been and are currently well represented on the court that has the final authority to interpret the Establishment Clause that Gordon doesn’t believe exists.

Blog Update

2005-03-15T21:15:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

I won't be posting much here until after this semester. We will be up and running soon.

New Church/State Idea

2005-02-24T13:44:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Get this and other products here: http://www.cafepress.com/church_state

Brooke Allen - Our Godless Constitution

2005-02-24T13:39:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Our Godless Constitution

by BROOKE ALLEN

[from the February 21, 2005 issue]

It is hard to believe that George Bush has ever read the works of George Orwell, but he seems, somehow, to have grasped a few Orwellian precepts. The lesson the President has learned best--and certainly the one that has been the most useful to him--is the axiom that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent.

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].

Treaty of Tripoli Bumpersticker

2005-02-13T19:31:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Get this and other products here: http://www.cafepress.com/4progress

Indiana Judge says ten commandments monument must be moved

2005-02-04T19:06:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

PRINCETON-The Ten Commandments monument must be moved from the Gibson County Courthouse square, according to a federal judge's Jan. 31 order.

In his order to remove the monument, U.S. Southern District Judge Richard Young noted that case precedent in Indiana finds the Ten Commandments "cannot be reasonably stripped of their sacred religious significance by a characterization of them as a moral or ethical code."

Judge Young wrote, "While a large majority of those that pass by the monument in Princeton may find its inscription to be consistent with their intentions and beliefs, plaintiffs and perhaps numerous others do not share that same feeling. Our forefathers strived to craft a Constitution and Bill of Rights which took into account the need for government to be "of all the people," no matter what religious beliefs they hold or choose not to hold."

Young found the display of the monument on the lawn of the seat of local government violates a constitutional guarantee that government will "not appear to promote, discourage or endorse any particular religious beliefs."

Last summer, Indiana joined eight other states seeking a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on how the Ten Commandments can legally be displayed on public property, and court agreed in October to hear the issue.

NYT: Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes

2005-02-01T15:55:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Dr. John Frandsen, a retired zoologist, was at a dinner for teachers in Birmingham, Ala., recently when he met a young woman who had just begun work as a biology teacher in a small school district in the state. Their conversation turned to evolution.

"She confided that she simply ignored evolution because she knew she'd get in trouble with the principal if word got about that she was teaching it," he recalled. "She told me other teachers were doing the same thing."
...
"You can imagine how difficult it would be to teach evolution as the standards prescribe in ever so many little towns, not only in Alabama but in the rest of the South, the Midwest - all over," Dr. Frandsen said.

Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said she heard "all the time" from teachers who did not teach evolution "because it's just too much trouble."

Washington Post Editorial: God and Darwin

2005-01-25T15:38:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Monday, January 24, 2005; Page A14

WITH THEIR SLICK Web sites, pseudo-academic conferences and savvy public relations, the proponents of "intelligent design" -- a "theory" that challenges the validity of Darwinian evolution -- are far more sophisticated than the creationists of yore. Rather than attempt to prove that the world was created in six days, they operate simply by casting doubt on evolution, largely using the time-honored argument that intelligent life could not have come about by a random natural process and must have been the work of a single creator. They do no experiments and do not publish in recognized scientific journals. Nevertheless, this new generation of anti-evolutionists, arguing that children have a "right to question" scientific truths, has had widespread success in undermining evolutionary theory.

Perhaps partly as a result, a startling 55 percent of Americans -- and 67 percent of those who voted for President Bush -- do not, according to a recent CBS poll, believe in evolution at all. According to a recent Gallup poll, about a third of Americans believe that the Bible is literally true. Some of these believers have persuaded politicians, school boards and parents across the country to question their children's textbooks. In states as diverse as Wisconsin, South Carolina, Kansas, Montana, Arkansas and Mississippi, school boards are arguing over whether to include "intelligent design" in their curriculums. Last week, in Pennsylvania's Dover School District, an administrator read a statement to ninth-grade biology students saying that evolution is not fact. Over the objections of ninth-grade science teachers and of parents who have filed suit, he offered "intelligent design" as an alternative. Also last week, a Georgia county school board voted to appeal a judge's decision to remove stickers describing evolution as a "theory, not a fact" from school textbooks. In both cases, the anti-evolutionists have been very careful in their choice of language, eschewing mentions of God or the Bible. Nevertheless, their intent was clear. As the lawsuit filed by Dover parents states, "intelligent design is neither scientific nor a theory in the scientific sense; it is an inherently religious argument or assertion that falls outside the realm of science." Discussion of religion in a history or philosophy class is legitimate and appropriate. To teach intelligent design as science in public schools is a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

It also violates principles of common sense. In fact, the breadth and extent of the anti-evolutionary movement that has spread almost unnoticed across the country should force American politicians to think twice about how their public expressions of religious belief are beginning to affect education and science. The deeply religious nature of the United States should not be allowed to stand in the way of the thirst for knowledge or the pursuit of science. Once it does, it won't be long before the American scientific community -- which already has trouble finding enough young Americans to fill its graduate schools -- ceases to lead the world.

Houston Chronicle: Preacher plans to watch his wording this time

2005-01-19T14:37:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

The first time the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell took the stage at the close of a presidential inauguration, his prayer caused more of a stir than he intended.

That was 2001 and the official start of President Bush's first term. Caldwell called on a God of "peace, prudent policy and nonpartisanship," and asked for an end to inequities of wealth and education.

He offered his "humble prayer in the name that's above all other names, Jesus the Christ."

And he ended by saying:

"Let all who agree say, Amen."

For some, that was the rub.

What about those who don't consider Jesus as the name above all others, the critics asked?

"I did take some flak for that and, quite frankly, rightfully so," said Caldwell, senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church. "It was never my intention to exclude or insult anyone. I chalk it up to public prayer naiveté."

Thursday, Caldwell will again pray at the close of Bush's inauguration as president — this time with experience under his belt. And he may have more listeners, Caldwell said.

SCOTUSblog: Newdow challenges inauguration prayers

2005-01-18T15:54:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Sacramento atheist Michael A Newdow, acting as his own attorney, on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to ban prayers from Thursday’s presidential inauguration ceremony, and asked Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist not to join in the Court’s action on his plea – as anticipated by a post on this blog Monday.

Condemning a practice that he recalled had occurred at every presidential oath-taking since 1937, Newdow’s emergency request for an injunction (docket 04A623) argues: “These prayers have all been given for a religious purpose, have all had religious effects, have all endorsed religious beliefs, have all placed government’s imprimatur upon religious doctrine, have all been coercive, have all been divisive, and have all violated the neutrality that every sitting Justice has agreed is a key to Establishment Clause jurisprudence.”

Full blog report here

Judge: Cobb Evolution stickers unconstitutional

2005-01-13T14:07:00.000-08:00

A federal judge ruled today that the evlolution disclaimer stickers that were placed on biology text books by Cobb County Georgia are unconstitutional.

The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding. the origin of living things This material should be approached with an open mind, sfudied carefully, and critically considered."

US District Judge Clarence Cooper:

"To be clear, this opinion resolves only a legal dispute Specifically, the narrow issue raised by this facial challenge is whether the sticker placed in certain Cobb County School District science textbooks violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and/or Article 1, Section II, Paragraph VII of the Constitution of the Stake of Georgia."

snip

"Due to the manner in which the sticker refers to evolution as a theory, the sticker also has the effect of undermining evolution education to the benefit of those Cobb County citizens who would prefer that students maintain their religious beliefs regarding the origin of life."

"The distinction of evolution as a theory rather than a fact is the distinction that religiously motivated individuals have specifically asked school boards to make in the most recent anti-evolution movement, and that was exactly what parents in Cobb County did in this case."

The full ruling can be read here if you can open PDF files.

By the way evolution is a theory (macroevolution) and a fact (microevolution).

Wisconsin State Journal: A big bang for creationism

2005-01-10T15:27:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Though it has been nearly 80 years since a high school biology teacher named John Scopes went on trial in Tennessee for teaching evolution in a public school, the issue remains far from dusty history here in Wisconsin.

A school board headed by a minister in the northwest Wisconsin village of Grantsburg recently created an uproar by ordering staff to teach creationism alongside evolution. The board subsequently revised its policy in November and now asks teachers to take a more critical approach to teaching evolution, pointing out it's just one of several theories and remains in dispute as a science.

Some school districts in southern Wisconsin previously incorporated creationism into lesson plans with considerably less attention. In Belleville and Albany, for example, evolution is taught as one of several theories, while creationism and its spinoffs, including the theory of intelligent design, are mentioned as alternative theories.

Full Article

Newdow files New Pledge Complaint

2005-01-04T14:37:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Michael Newdow filed this complaint yesterday with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, which includes parents with full legal custody.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: La Crosse, Wisconsin Ten Commandment Land Sale Upheld

2005-01-03T19:25:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion today that upholds La Crosse, Wisconsin's decision to sell a portion of its public park (and the Ten Commandments it sat on) to the Order of Eagles, which had originally donated the monument to the City.

Joplin Globe Editorial Watch: Removing a prayer

2005-01-02T13:04:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Contrary to what many people believe, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale did not remove prayer from public schools. It removed a prayer. This was a prayer prepared by the New York State Board of Regents. As Justice Black noted in the majority opinion of the court, a prayer by any definition constituted a religious activity, and by promoting prayer the state violated the Establishment Clause.
Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court.

“The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District’s principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:”

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
This decision did not “remove prayer” from the public schools. It did prohibit government agencies from writing such prayers and from directing their recitation. As a retired teacher from Joplin, I often observed students praying — most often it seemed on days of examinations.

Galen McKinley
Joplin

Link

Eufaula Tribune: Justice Moore to Associate Justice, your going to Hell!

2005-01-01T09:29:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Then Chief Justice Moore, away from Montgomery on a family matter, was furious when he phoned Justice Houston. Houston and the other associate justices had signed an order calling for the removal of Moore's 5,200 pound Ten Commandments monument from the public areas of the court building. The order followed Moore's repeated refusal to comply with a federal court order demanding the monument be moved.

"Our order directed the building manager to remove the monument from the public areas of the Judicial Building as soon as possible so as to comply with the outstanding injunction," Houston writes in "The Monument in the Judicial Building," a paper released to The Tribune recently.

Moore, according to Houston's account, not only berated him for complying with the federal court order. He told him he was going to hell.

"He told me that I was going to be punished," Houston writes. "He said that I did not know what I had done; that I had covered God. I was speechless because of what I was accused of having done."

(Moore later denied making such statements in an interview with The Birmingham News.)

Houston, who became Moore's foil in the dramatic Ten Commandments monument controversy and was even called "Judas" by one out-of-state preacher, said he hasn't talked with Moore since.

Full Article

Joplin Globe Watch: New Framing Tag

2004-12-31T06:34:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

For those interested in political framing an editorial in today's Globe provides us with a new phrase to frame around. "Religious socialists": those that want more government involvement in religion. The phrase comes from Karley Johnston and you can read her editorial at the bottom of this page.

Joplin Globe Watch: No Uniformity through Coercion

2004-12-24T09:17:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

John Cragin’s recent editorial (Globe, Dec. 24) made the case that the government should not prohibit “the use of words like God, Allah, Jesus, Budda…” I agree with him but I am somewhat confused as to why he is concerned about this. It could be that he thinks courts have actually limited the rights of citizens to pray and talk about religion in public. Or maybe he knows better and hopes that you do not, I am not sure.

Let’s take a look at what the courts have prohibited. In ENGEL v. VITALE (1962) one of the cases our conservative friends say has “banned prayer in school” the court ruled that “state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools...” Notice is doesn’t say citizens may not compose a prayer and than proceed to pray. The ruling limits the government’s actions so that the people can make their own decisions and pray their own prayers without influence from the State.

Unfortunately, some people are so insecure in their beliefs that they feel they need assistance from the State. Placing the Ten Commandments on their own property just isn’t good enough and prayers just don’t have the same ring unless you can cite their corresponding law. Some day these same people may realize that the tool of government coercion is actually contrary to advancing their dream of religious uniformity.

Joplin Globe: Neosho schools pull Bible off reading list

2004-12-22T22:06:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

School board to decide if Bible will be included in reading program

Dena Sloan
Globe Staff Writer
12/22/04

NEOSHO, Mo. - Neosho school officials say they're trying to err on the side of caution. Two parents say it's a matter of free speech and equal access.

Now it's up to the Neosho Board of Education to decide whether to include the Bible in a reading program used by many of the district's students.

Mary Alice and Chuck Nelson voiced their concerns Monday night, telling the School Board that material they donated to the district was not made unavailable to students because it tests them on most of the books of the Old and New Testaments.

Full Article

LA Times: Cheerleading Coach Finds Prayer Not a Team Sport

2004-12-21T13:07:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

By Jenny Jarvie and Ellen Barry, Times Staff Writers

ATLANTA — A federal judge on Monday denied an appeal for reinstatement by a University of Georgia cheerleading coach accused of mingling religion with team activities. Marilou Braswell was fired in August, according to university officials, for retaliating against a Jewish cheerleader who had complained about pressure to participate in Bible study and team prayers.

The case has drawn attention to sports in Georgia, where coaches often lead players in prayer or worship.

In spring of 2003, the student, Jaclyn Steele, approached authorities with complaints about the cheerleading program. Cheerleaders, she said, were pressured to attend Bible study sessions at the coach's home, led by her husband, a minister. Steele also said Braswell led prayers before sporting events. And Steele complained that the listserv used by cheerleaders was a vehicle for prayer requests.

More

AP: Student's objections over pledge sparks change

2004-12-20T18:58:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

SPOTSYLVANIA, Va. -- A middle school student's objection to standing during the Pledge of Allegiance is sparking change in Spotsylvania County's schools.

At the start of each school day, all students stand facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts during the pledge. Students can choose not to recite the pledge if they or their parents object on religious, philosophical or other grounds, which is consistent with state law.

But Virginia also allows students to quietly and respectfully sit at their desks while others stand and say the pledge. Spotsylvania's policy says nothing about letting students sit during the pledge.

A seventh-grader at Ni River Middle School objected to the requirement that he stand during the pledge, contending it violated his freedom of speech, Principal Stephen Covert said. Covert said the student's complaint occurred several weeks ago. He said the boy has been allowed to sit during the pledge.

The School Board's attorney advised Superintendent Jerry Hill that Spotsylvania's policy violates state law because it doesn't allow students to sit through the pledge.

Joseph Perkins and Multiple Establishments

2004-12-18T20:39:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

In Joseph Perkins' recent column "Tyranny of the nonbelievers" he makes the case that atheists are "waging an unholy war against God" by seeking the removal of religious symbols being displayed on government property. Notice the implication that only atheists are concerned about the government promoting religious viewpoints. Does anyone wonder if Mr. Perkins would be willing to pay for a large Darwin fish at his city hall or state capital? Would he find it an acceptable use of his tax dollars and government property for the government to construct a giant Koran at the local public park?

This is the problem with multiple endorsements. The government can't possibly endorse all religious views so it had better remain neutral and leave the promotion of religious viewpoints to the people, where it belongs.

Contact Joseph here: Joseph.Perkins@UnionTrib.com

The Tennessean: Substitute says job lost for refusing to say pledge

2004-12-17T10:10:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

By JAY HAMBURG
Staff Writer

Hickman school officials say silence isn't why he's bypassed

One nation, under God.

Or is it?

A substitute teacher in Hickman County claims he lost his job yesterday for raising that question.

Chris Warren is not an atheist objecting to the religion in Pledge of Allegiance. Instead, he says he wishes the planks of the pledge were upheld. Because they're not, he said, he refused to say the pledge in class.

He doesn't believe phrases like ''one nation under God'' and ''indivisible'' and ''liberty and justice for all'' are true anymore.

Full Article

Palm Beach Post: Voters may be asked to remove Florida's church-state ban

2004-12-16T07:56:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Voters may be asked to remove Florida's church-state ban

By S.V. Date

Palm Beach Post Capital Bureau

Thursday, December 16, 2004

TALLAHASSEE — Christian conservatives frustrated by court rulings that have found a school voucher program unconstitutional may have hit upon a possible solution: changing the constitution.

Sen. Daniel Webster, a former House speaker and now the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday he is exploring the possibility of a citizens initiative to repeal the 136-year-old wording that separates church and state in Florida.

Full Article

Mobile Register: Judge wears Ten Commandments on his robe

2004-12-15T10:59:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Wednesday, December 15, 2004
By CONNIE BAGGETT
Staff Reporter

A rural Alabama judge began wearing a robe embroidered with the Ten Commandments to his Andalusia courtroom this week, echoing the statement made by the state Supreme Court chief justice ousted over a Ten Commandments display.

Covington County Presiding Circuit Court Judge Ashley McKathan said he ordered the robe and had it embroidered using his own money. He said he did it because he felt strongly that he should stand up for his personal religious convictions.

Full Article

AU: Pennsylvania Parents File First-Ever Challenge To 'Intelligent Design' Instruction In Public Schools

2004-12-14T16:14:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Tuesday December 14, 2004

'Intelligent Design' Is Religious Argument, Not Science, Say Parents

HARRISBURG, PA-The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting "intelligent design" in public school science classrooms violates their religious liberty by promoting particular religious beliefs to their children under the guise of science education.

"Teaching students about religion's role in world history and culture is proper, but disguising a particular religious belief as science is not," said ACLU of Pennsylvania Legal Director Witold Walczak. "Intelligent design is a Trojan Horse for bringing religious creationism back into public school science classes."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United Executive Director, added, "Public schools are not Sunday schools, and we must resist any efforts to make them so. There is an evolving attack under way on sound science education, and the school board's action in Dover is part of that misguided crusade. 'Intelligent design' has about as much to do with science as reality television has to do with reality."

Full Release

Joplin Globe Editorial Watch

2004-12-14T06:41:00.000-08:00

From today's editorial pages of the Joplin Globe: "The ACLU was the first to use the term 'separation of church and state,' words that cannot be found in our Constitution, but they have convinced thousands of liberal judges that it is there."

Has the ACLU really convinced judges to interpret part of the Constitution that doesn't exist? Lets see what the judges say: "Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day - even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited." ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

"The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that each display violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because each has the impermissible effect of endorsing religion. [492 U.S. 573, 579] 842 F.2d 655 (1988). We agree that the creche display has that unconstitutional effect but reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment regarding the menorah display. ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

From yesterday's Joplin Globe editorial pages: "Parents should teach their children to obey the rules. One of the rules at present is no prayer in school. The children of Christians obey the rules and do their praying outside of school."

Of course, children may pray in schools. What is not permited is teachers, school boards, and state congressman writting and directing prayers. The students have the freedom to pray without influence from the State.

Richmond Times-Dispatch: Limit on prayer stirs the South

2004-12-13T12:00:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Limit on prayer stirs the South
Supreme Court could end debate on mixing religion, government

BY KRISTEN GELINEAU
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Dec 13, 2004

CULPEPER - At a recent Town Council meeting, Vice Mayor Pam Jenkins cautiously asked "everyone who is comfortable" to join in saying "Amen" for a community member who had just died.

Loudly, and with more than a hint of defiance, residents obliged.

Several months ago, leaders of this community reluctantly stopped their generations-old practice of opening council meetings with prayers after a federal appeals court ruled that invoking specific religions in public prayers is unconstitutional.

The ruling has snuffed traditional public prayers throughout the South, ushered in nondenominational prayers or a moment of silence in others, and left many officials confused over what is allowed. Some communities have defied the ruling and continue to recite Christian prayers.
Click here.

The Supreme Court could ultimately decide the issue, if not end the debate.

"I think there's a lot of confusion. Everybody's afraid of getting sued," said John Whitehead, president and founder of Virginia's Rutherford Institute, a legal advocacy group that fights for religion's place in society. The institute has fielded calls from public officials around the South seeking counsel on the ruling.

The American Civil Liberties Union contends, however, the public prayer divide illustrates the danger of mixing religion and government.

"Once government abandons its neutral position toward religion and tries to somehow accommodate all religions, it creates an almost impossible situation because some religions ultimately will be left out or be discriminated against," said Kent Willis, Virginia ACLU executive director.
'I refuse to alter my prayer'

The July decision was made by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.

The case involved Darla Kaye Wynne, a Wiccan high priestess, who sued the town of Great Falls, S.C., over its practice of opening meetings with prayers that specifically mentioned Jesus Christ. She said town leaders refused to open meetings with nonsectarian invocations or to allow prayers from members of different faiths.

A federal judge ruled last year that the town's prayers were an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by government. The appeals court agreed, citing Supreme Court rulings that allow only generic prayers by government bodies.

The Great Falls Town Council voted recently to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those opposing the ruling cite Marsh v. Chambers, a 1983 Supreme Court decision that ruled legislative bodies can pray. But supporters of the 4th Circuit ruling argue the Marsh decision only permits nonsectarian prayer at public meetings.

full text

Miami Herald: Nativity scene ruling awaited

2004-12-12T12:35:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

A U.S. District Court judge said Tuesday she will make a decision early this week as to whether a Nativity scene can be included in Bay Harbor Islands' holiday decorations.

Sandra Snowden filed the suit Dec. 2 through the More Law Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich., group that claims to promote the religious freedom of Christians. She complained the town's public holiday display, which contains a Menorah, has no Christian symbols. Her suit seeks the court's permission to place a Nativity scene alongside the other holiday decorations.

At an emergency injunction hearing Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga said Snowden's attorney had until Friday to respond to filings submitted by the town's attorney.

Full Article

Joplin Globe Editorial: Different view

2004-12-11T21:17:00.000-08:00

Albert Hopkins’ letter (Globe, Dec. 7) made the statement that the ACLU was in a “fight against God Almighty.” Was the ACLU fighting God when they announced they would defend a Presbyterian church from being evicted by local government in Nebraska in 2004? Was it anti-God for the ACLU to protect the rights of Virginia citizens to have baptisms in public parks in Richmond? What about when the Virginia ACLU joined a lawsuit by the Rev. Jerry Falwell to protect the rights of religious organizations on Free Exercise grounds? Was that Anti-God? How would you rate truthfulness as a family and Biblical value?

Full Article Link

TimesDaily: Alabama attorney general enters Ten Commandments cases

2004-12-09T10:56:00.000-08:00

Alabama Attorney General Troy King has joined attorneys generals from other states to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear cases from the two states, with the arguments likely coming in February.

King filed a brief Wednesday, which was joined by attorneys general from 14 other states, that argued that Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses are legal.

Full Article

WP: In Calif., Cross Site Stirs Discord

2004-12-06T11:05:00.000-08:00

In Calif., Cross Site Stirs Discord
Church-State Separation Is Issue at Mount Soledad Memorial

By Kimberly EddsSpecial to The Washington PostMonday, December 6, 2004; Page A19

SAN DIEGO -- Perched high atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla, the towering white cross has sat as a memorial to veterans of the Korean War for half a century. It has also become a symbol of a divisive war between the city of San Diego and a local atheist over the issues of separation of church and state, free speech and freedom of religion.

When a ballot measure that would have allowed the city to sell the land was defeated in the November elections, it looked as though the debate was over. The 43-foot cross would be moved.

But two local congressmen have intervened with a proposition they say will keep the cross where it is.

Republican Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Duncan Hunter want the site -- which now includes more than 1,000 plaques honoring veterans -- named a national war memorial. They added the veterans memorial designation as a rider to a voluminous spending bill approved last month by Congress.

Under the bill, expected to be signed by President Bush soon, the site would become part of the National Park Service but would be maintained by the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which built the cross as a tribute to veterans in 1954.

"It's a shaky proposition, but if it works, we would be eternally grateful," said William J. Kellogg, president of the memorial association.

Opponents say simply transferring the land to federal hands does not resolve the issue of separation of church and state.

"Crosses belong on churches, not in public parks," said lawyer James McElroy, who is representing atheist Philip Paulson in his efforts to see the cross removed. "It doesn't make any difference if it's on federal land, state land or city land. . . . The government should not be in the business of religion."

More here.

My Letter to My "Representative" i.e. HB 35

2004-12-06T02:07:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Rep. Richard,

I wanted to state my disagreement with HB 35. It is an attempt to have the State regulate the scientific content of Biology text books and mandate specific content on a specific issue. Do not current Bio Texts contain a "critical analysis of origins?" If so what precisely is she looking for? Why should the state mandate that science texts include "philosophical claims that are made in the name of science?" The bill calls for texts when teaching about evolution to include "the full range of scientific views that exist." Now, that sounds nice, but 1) Why just on the subject of evolution[?], and 2) What constitutes a "scientific view?" Some authors think postmodernism is scientific, although that statement itself seems to be a contradiction.

Look, it is about 95% likely that she wants to introduce creationism into science classes. Now that is fine but she can't just come out and say it can she? Anyway, I am interested in whether you are now more or less likely to sponsor this bill....

Seth Jackson

Missouri HB 35: Evolution Targeted

2004-12-05T07:56:00.000-08:00

HB 35 introduced by Represenative Cynthia Davis states the following:

Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 170.032, to read as follows:

170.032. All biology textbooks sold to the public schools of the state of Missouri shall have one or more chapters containing a critical analysis of origins. The chapters shall convey the distinction between data and testable theories of science and philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy, such as biological evolution, the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.

This seems to be an effort to introduce creationism into public schools via the law.

Contact Rep. Davis here: Cynthia.Davis@house.mo.gov; ask.cynthia@juno.com

Breaking Through Persistent Myths about Church and State

2004-12-01T13:39:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

There is plenty of misinformation floating around in middle-America about the separation between religion and government. I think it is important to pin point a couple of the most damaging themes and reframe them in a new more accurate way.

The first misconception is that church and state cases have prohibited the religious expression of citizens when they have in fact only limited the activities of governments and their officials. It is common to hear from our detractors that proponents of church and state separation want to “ban all religious expression in the public arena.” Notice there is no dichotomy between governmental activities and the religious expression of citizens. It is our job to make sure that one is inserted! The government we can say, “should leave religious expression to the people.” The government has no business promoting or devaluing religion in the form of law and policy.

Another myth about church and state separation is that it isn’t in the Constitution. The founders used the phrase “separation of church and state” to refer specifically to the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment. We should remind the public of this.

Lastly, a single phrase has done harm to the value of church and state separation in terms of public opinion. Some conservatives use the phrase “activist judges” many times to refer to judicial opinions to which they disagree. We should remind them and their readers that such judges are interpreting the law in the same way that the Justices in Brown v. Board of Education did.

Establishing Jurisprudence: The high court should stop its disingenuous sidestep of the church-state debate

2004-12-01T12:10:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Dicta: Establishing Jurisprudence
The high court should stop its disingenuous sidestep of the church-state debate.

By Dahlia Lithwick
The American Lawyer
December 1, 2004

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a pair of cases testing the constitutionality of displays of the Ten Commandments on government property. The Court finally agreed to reconcile conflicting lower rulings-concerning the display of a six-foot monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol in one case, and another involving framed copies of the commandments on Kentucky courthouse walls. The two cases have legitimate differences: The Texas display is part of a collection, the Kentucky "collection" sprung up to protect the display. The Texas monument is in a "museum-like" setting. The Kentucky display is on a court wall. The Texas Commandments monument was a gift, and has stood uncontested for decades. But underlying all the details is a profound problem: a tendency to disregard the religious in our religion cases.

Having avoided this issue for decades, the Court must now reexamine the carnage left in the wake of its batty establishment clause jurisprudence-a line of cases effectively holding that it's okay for the state to erect Christmas crèches and such on public property, so long as the ratio of Santas to Sponge Bobs in the manger is roughly equivalent. As a result of this lack of guidance, lower courts have been forced to take the religious display cases to mean it's fine to display the Decalogue, so long as it's lost in a clutch of other "historical" documents. Copies of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, Christopher Columbus's traveler's checks-all this stuff somehow immunizes a religious display from endorsing or advancing religion; perhaps because all that clutter endorses and advances only headaches.

As a result of this line of inquiry, courts across the land have upheld religious displays using what Justice Anthony Kennedy once dubbed "the jurisprudence of minutiae"-the theory that public land becomes more like a "museum" if you've amassed enough tchotchkes for God. This constitutional compromise only ensures both sides will be offended: Atheists are still affronted that the state is promoting any religious symbols, believers are annoyed that cherished icons are awash in a sea of knickknacks.

Full Article

Houston Chronicle: Touring Commandments make a symbolic stop

2004-11-27T20:46:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Alabama tablet pulls up alongside contested display outside courthouse
By BILL MURPHY
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle

A 5,280-pound Ten Commandments monument removed from an Alabama court building was displayed near a Bible monument at the Harris County Civil Courts Building on Friday to show support of religious symbols on government property.

American Veterans In Domestic Defense parked a flatbed truck with the granite Ten Commandments near the Bible display outside the courthouse.

"Our egregious judicial decisions are running roughshod over our Christian heritage, and we are tired of it," said Jim Cabaniss of Houston, the group's president, who is a retired owner of a company that built laboratories.

Full Article

NYT: Charter Schools Fall Short in Public Schools Matchup

2004-11-23T22:46:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

A new study commissioned by the Department of Education, which compares the achievement of students in charter schools with those attending traditional public schools in five states, has concluded that the charter schools were less likely to meet state performance standards.

In Texas, for instance, the study found that 98 percent of public schools met state performance requirements two years ago, but that only 66 percent of the charter schools did. Even when adjusted for race and poverty, the study said, the charter schools fell short more frequently by a statistically significant amount.

The study added new data to a highly politicized debate between charter school supporters, including senior Bush administration officials, and skeptics who question the performance of the publicly financed but privately managed schools.

Full Article

Read the Dept. of Education report here

AU Press Release: Taxpayer-Funded Americorps Program Should Not Promote Religion

2004-11-22T23:16:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Taxpayer-Funded Americorps Program Should Not Promote Religion, Watchdog Group Says
Monday November 22, 2004

Americans United Urges Appellate Panel To Bar Religious Instruction By Program Participants

Teachers taking part in the taxpayer-funded AmeriCorps program should not be permitted to engage in religious instruction at sectarian schools, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has advised a federal appeals court.

The AmeriCorps program, run by the Corporation for National and Community Service, provides stipends called “national service education awards” to individuals for work at certain locations around the country.

Some of these positions are at religious schools, and some of the award recipients teach religion and lead religious activities as part of their work at these schools. A U.S. District Court ruled July 2 that the arrangement is unconstitutional. The federal government has appealed.

Full statement

San Diego Union-Tribune: Mt. Soledad Cross is slipped in federal legislation

2004-11-22T06:45:00.000-08:00

By Matthew T. Hall
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

November 21, 2004

Congress last night joined the fight to keep the Mount Soledad cross in place by naming it a national veterans memorial.

The designation, inserted by two local congressmen in a voluminous spending bill that requires President Bush's approval, raises more questions about the fate of the symbol that has been at the center of an emotional 15-year legal battle.

Christian activists hailed the development yesterday. Civil libertarians, however, said it would not stop a plan to move the cross from city land in La Jolla to comply with a federal court injunction that has been on hold since 1991.

Reuters: Pennsylvania School District Retreats from Evolution

2004-11-21T07:38:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Fri Nov 19, 2004 06:42 PM ET
By Jon Hurdle

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania school district on Friday defended its decision to discount Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and take a lead in teaching what critics say is a version of creationism.

Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania is believed to be the first in the country to approve the teaching of a new theory called "intelligent design," according to the National Center for Science Education.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that the complexity of nature is such that it could not have occurred by chance, as Darwinian theory holds, and so must have been created by some all-powerful force.

That being is not explicitly identified, but many of the theory's conservative religious supporters say it is God.

NCSE, an Oakland, California-based group that defends the teaching of evolution in schools, said the district's board approved the policy change last month after a debate that began more than a year ago when a board member objected to a biology textbook on the grounds it focused on Darwinism.

Full article

Globe Editorial Watch

2004-11-20T20:22:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

I disagree with President Bush on some issues, particularly immigration, but I refuse to vote for a candidate who approves the killing of babies (abortion), for any approval of homosexual conduct or the removal of Christian (Biblical) displays from public view.

Robert A. Scott
Joplin

Full page

"However, history may affect the constitutionality of nonsectarian references to religion by the government, history cannot legitimate practices that demonstrate the government's allegiance to a particular sect or creed." ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

CNN: Academy removes Christian banner

2004-11-20T20:03:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colorado (AP) -- The Air Force Academy's longtime football coach has agreed to remove a Christian banner from the team's locker room after school administrators announced they would do more to fight religious intolerance.

Coach Fisher DeBerry agreed Friday to remove the banner, which displayed the "Competitor's Creed," including the lines "I am a Christian first and last ... I am a member of Team Jesus Christ."

DeBerry put the banner up Wednesday to encourage the team, which has experienced one of its worst seasons in recent years, academy spokesman Lt. Col. Laurent Fox said.

A day earlier, academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. John W. Rosa announced the school would do more religious tolerance training after some nonreligious cadets reported on a survey that they felt ostracized. Others reported hearing religious slurs or jokes.

Outgoing Air Force Secretary James Roche issued a statement Friday backing the academy's effort. "Our policy is clear. Tolerance of gender, racial, ethnic and religious diversity is required at our Air Force," Roche said.

In September, academy officials issued a memo explaining the government's e-mail policy after some staffers put biblical verses at the bottom of their e-mails. Some cadets were admonished in March for using academy e-mail accounts to encourage other people to see "The Passion of the Christ," Mel Gibson's movie about the crucifixion.

Link

Poway district rejects request for pledge alternative

2004-11-19T07:43:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Poway district rejects request for pledge alternative

By: JESSICA MUSICAR - For the North County Times

POWAY---- A parent of a student in the Poway school district said he has been ignored by the school board after requesting a patriotic alternative to the Pledge of Allegiance for his child and others like her.

Kevin Cornwall, father of a kindergarten student at Midland Elementary School, approached the Poway Unified School District trustees at the district's monthly meeting Oct. 18, asking for an alternative to the pledge that would allow his child to participate without making an oath that uses the phrase "under God."

He said that while he does not want his child to say a pledge that includes the notion of God, he also does not want her to be excluded from patriotic events. Children are not required to say the pledge.

"There should be an alternative for parents and children who don't believe allegiance should include religion," Cornwall said at the Oct. 18 meeting. "We are not asking that 'under God' be taken out of the pledge, or the pledge out of schools."

After bringing his request to the board, the pledge issue did not make it onto the November meeting agenda. Superintendent Don Phillips said the only way a topic appears on the agenda is if a board member or board president requests that it is included.

Cornwall received a letter from Phillips stating there is "no interest on the part of any board member to conduct a vote regarding any change in the district's current practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance as an appropriate patriotic exercise."

"I'm just very disappointed in the process," Cornwall said this week. "To me they've got this big loophole to just sidestep anything. How do we have a board that has procedures in place that allow them to be that unresponsive to parents' concerns?"

While the Oct. 18 meeting is the first time Cornwall formally brought his request to the board, he said he asked the trustees and officials at his daughter's school for alternatives prior to enrolling her this year.

Phillips said this week that they have all tried to find ways to accommodate the student, whether suggesting that she not say the pledge, not say the offending words, or that she step out of the classroom when it is said.

Cornwall said these options are not acceptable because in the end his child is excluded from an activity. He suggested that the school offer a separate class where all children who do not choose to say the pledge can go and participate in other patriotic activities.

"I don't want to exclude kids from developing their own sense of patriotism," Cornwall said. "It is hard to build that sense of allegiance if they have to sit it out."

Cornwall said that, while he believes children should have the option of saying the pledge, it is "educationally irresponsible" for the school to introduce the concept of God, a sensitive topic in the public school system, without explaining it.

Linda Vanderveen, a board trustee, said that Cornwall's suggestion is not viable, because there aren't enough dissenting children in the school to fill a separate class. Furthermore, parents rather than the school should have the responsibility for teaching, or not teaching, the concept of God to youngsters.

"We already have enough demands on our day," Vanderveen said. "I think the fact that we are supportive of his daughter's right not to say the pledge is enough. We accept people's beliefs, we don't make anybody do it, but we also aren't going to not do it because someone doesn't believe that."

Vanderveen added that Cornwall is the only parent to ask for an alternative.

"He just says we're unresponsive because we aren't doing what he wants. We gave him the opportunity to speak, we just obviously disagree with him," Vanderveen said. "We spent a lot of time on this issue.ÝWe do want to do what's right, but we are going to do what is in the best interest of all the students."

Cornwall said his reason for asking for an alternative has nothing to do with his own religious beliefs. Instead, he feels that a pledge that mentions God excludes atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses and others who don't feel comfortable saying the pledge. Children should not be put in a position where they are made to feel like they don't belong, he said.

"My beliefs don't enter into it," Cornwall said. "I want public institutions to be inclusive. I'm saying let's help the people who don't believe in God to be included. That doesn't mean I have to be one of those people who do believe in God."

Link

Boston Globe: Evolution foes see opening to press fight in schools

2004-11-16T12:15:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

Evolution foes see opening to press fight in schools
By Raja Mishra, Globe Staff | November 16, 2004

A long-running American cultural clash has flared yet again, with a trial in suburban Atlanta this month over teaching evolution in public schools. Several Georgia parents are challenging a local school board's decision to require biology textbooks to include a prominently placed label stating that evolution is ''not a fact."

The Georgia case is the first to land in court, but this year alone 13 states have had challenges to teaching evolution in schools. With the new federal No Child Left Behind education law mandating a broad review of science curriculum in every state over the next two years, those challenges may accelerate, as religious activists and evolution opponents seize on opportunities to shape guidelines on what public school students learn about the natural world.

Those challenging evolution rarely say that schools should teach creationism, the biblical account of the origin of life. Instead, they insist that teachers present evolution as a debated and uncertain hypothesis, though most scientists consider it among the most important and well-supported scientific theories of all time. Scientists worry that the antievolution campaign will weaken American science education and see it as part of a broader push to incorporate religion in public schools.

Full Article

Florida school voucher program ruled unconstitutional, again

2004-11-15T22:16:00.000-08:00

Our Conscience

A state appeals court has struck down Florida's voucher program, holding that it clearly violates a provision of the Florida Constitution by funneling tax money to religious schools.

The 1st District Court of Appeal, sitting as a full panel en banc, ruled Nov. 12 that Gov. Jeb Bush's Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) fails to pass constitutional muster.

"This is the third straight defeat for vouchers in Florida," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Giving tax money to religious schools clearly violates the state constitution, and court after court has ruled that way. I hope Gov. Bush and state legislators get the message that you can't force Florida taxpayers to support religion."

Full Article

CNN: Some worry evolution dispute hurts image

2004-11-15T09:17:00.000-08:00

Some worry evolution dispute hurts image
Stickers calling evolution 'theory, not fact' at center of case

ATLANTA (AP) -- First, Georgia's education chief tried to take the word "evolution" out of the state's science curriculum. Now a suburban Atlanta county is in federal court over textbook stickers that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."

Some here worry that Georgia is making itself look like a bunch of rubes or, worse, discrediting its own students.

"People want to project the image that Georgia is a modern state, that we're in the 21st century. Then something like this happens," said Emory University molecular biologist Carlos Moreno.

Read the rest of this CNN article