Date: Sun Nov 02 10:07:39 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: School Prayer Venting
At 09:52 PM 11/1/97 0600, you wrote:
I thought of you when I read the article. I knew you would be pleased. Yes, we differ on this issue. I just think it is sad when a community of neighbors are ordered by outsiders to stop praying (as at ball games) if they want to. It is a thing between them and their God.
The case is not about a community of neighbors, it's about government. First Amendment jurisprudence governs only what governments can and cannot do, not private citizens, neighbors or communities. This is very important. And you should read the first two lines of this paragraph a few times. It's too easy to think that cases like this are a personal attack on YOUR religion, or Christianity in general. They're not. It has nothing to do with hostility to religion in general or Christianity in particular. It has to do with permissible uses of governmental power, and in these cases "might" is not "right" merely because "the majority" happens to agree with it. It is THAT that the founding fathers were addressing in the first amendment, that is what the Puritans were escaping when they came here.
If *they* kept it between themselves and their God, it wouldn't be an issue. But they don't, so it is. The order doesn't tell private citizens, individually or in groups, not to pray. It tells government not to pray. It's a difficult concept to grasp, but keep working on it.
I can't think of any place I personally think is more inappropriate to hear prayer than at a ball game. I don't go to ball games for the religious experience of it. I go to watch people "whup up" on one another. In a private environment, if the sponsors of the game want to make a religious spectacle of it, that's fine I suppose, and I can choose to attend or not. The First Amendment has nothing to do with that. But in a government sponsored arena, it's another ball game entirely. ; ) Because, there, my government is sponsoring, promoting and endorsing religion that I don't subscribe to. Did you ever get a chance to read my memos on this?
The argument that students or the faculty should be permitted to "acknowledge" God is a red herring. Where does acknowledgment stop, and promotion, endorsement, sponsoring or establishment begin? The problem, me amigo, is that I know where the line is drawn, but that those who say they "only want to acknowledge God" don't, they never do and never will because of the "majority rules" mentality. And that's why you have situations cropping up like what happened in Pike County, over and over again.
No religion pushing, no evangelizing, no anti-Semitism!
It's not anti-Semitism. But it is pushing religion and evangelizing when they do it. Remember the early analogy about your right to throw a punch stops just before my nose? Same with religion. Your (general "you") right to practice your religion stops only when you get up in my face with it by using my tax dollars to do it.
The courts and the government just needs to stay the heck out of their business! But it is typical of the intolerance of the "left" (who hark "tolerance" out of the other side of their mouths).
Frank, that's me you're talkin' about there.... When the government sponsored pious ones learn to stay out of my face, then government and the ACLU won't need to intrude in their "business." What business is it of government to hold a prayer meeting? It's really all or none. It couldn't be more offensive to me, not because I'm Jewish. If I were a Christian and someone like Roy Moore presumed to lead me in prayer I would not help but think it was blasphemy coming from him. You have to answer that one Frank.
Were someone to take the time to do a poll on why people want prayer before games and what it means to them, they'd find (much to the disappointment of some who look for such) there is NO intent to put anyone down by it.
Good intentions pave the road to hell. I would like to be able see naked women walking down the streets expressing themselves in their natural splendor, but it offends other people whether the women INTEND to be offensive or not. That they don't intend the harm they cause, is not an answer.
We've touched on this before. There doesn't have to be active intent to discriminate before it becomes objectionable. That's why you don't have to apologize for your views with the qualifier that you're not being anti-Semitic. I don't think you're anti-Semitic merely because you think the Christian right should be permitted to pray whenever and wherever they want to, including using my tax dollars to do it. But the thought process is a not so subtle form of intolerance which can LEAD to active discrimination if not checked. "When they came for the Jews, I said nothing, for I was not a Jew...."
Your thinking is gravitating back to the "majority rules" fallback argument. The teachers in Pike County don't INTEND to hurt the little Jewish kids' feelings, but they do, by fostering an atmosphere where the minority view is ignored, tacitly belittled because it "different." It's insensitive, it's rude, it is in fact benign intolerance because the effect of it makes those who are not in the "majority" second class citizens, and encourages others to treat them that way as I've explained in the past. I cannot see how trying to protect the minority from the UNINTENDED consequences of the majority's insensitivities is intolerance. You're projecting.
Find for us a way that men like Moore can become our spiritual guide while he is holding the gavel, and yet insure that those who don't share his views are not made second class citizens, and you'll have solved the riddle of the Sphinx. But that is what this is all about. Do not rely on trite arguments like, "it wouldn't be so bad, they can ignore it if they want." Because you can't ignore it when it's in your face from men like Moore.
Sorry, I don't mean to instigate another long dialog (that we've had before). I just needed to vent a little.
It's OK... What surprises me is that some of what I think are great arguments still get lost, even though you're a very willing participant in the dialog. It's an opportunity for me to continue to explore how to get through to "the majority." Venting is fine, as long as we continue to make constructive use of it.
My patriotic soul just grieves when yet another of our hard won, long cherished....
Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank, Frank. This has nothing to do with patriotism. No offense, and I've said this before, but if the "Christian right" is appealing to your sense of patriotism, you're being used. Appeals to God, patriotism, and public opinion polls are no answer to solving the problems of intolerance that you see in the tears of a little girl.
I feel I'm very patriotic, if only because the alternatives to America don't look as good. Despite my absolute agreement with the "result" of Judge DeMent's rulings, I have a problem with the way they're drafted. In that case, the ends are good, but the means cannot be legally justified. I'm speaking as a lawyer here. I think he unintentionally overstepped. I believe in the rule of law, firmly, although God knows why, considering what I've seen, I still do. My sense of patriotism tells me DeMent's result is right, but the approach, the method, is wrong, and I intend to assist my office in getting the order straightened out, because I believe in the rule of law. I want the same result, but I want it achieved by different means.
...liberties is ripped away by some activist (tyrant) judge! One day, he too, will stand before a just God and give account for his actions.
Assuming he will stand before God, and that we'll see each other there (or maybe passing each other on our way to separate destinations), I'll bet you a dollar right now that God will welcome that judge and say "Well done. Thanks for looking out for the rest of my children, and protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You went a little overboard, but all things considered, you done good!" It's a good example of how our beliefs in God differ.
Judge DeMent is neither an activist, a tyrant, nor a liberal. He was a Republican Bush appointee I believe, FYI. He spent many years in the military, retired general, I think. Very no nonsense, deliberate, law-and-order kinda' guy. Former U.S. Attorney heading up the Montgomery (Middle District) Office, during (I think) the Reagan years, maybe Ford, but I could be wrong. Anyway, he's anything but an activist, (although some lawyers think he's a tyrant).
See how quick you are to label people and judge them, just because you disagree with the result in a particular case? Got to be careful not to mix your legal analysis with political preconceptions.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment