Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 14:15:35 0600
From: Frank Grose
To: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Legal Opinions
Rob,
I hope you are having a good day. If you are, I hope I don't ruin it.
Having let several days (and a vacation) go by after responding (on paper) to your question of what I thought of your Legal Opinions, perhaps I can respond without the emotion that I had in the paper draft response. [Editor's Note: See posts XXVII and XXVIII to view the legal opinions Frank is referring to.]
First, you did an incomplete job. You only used supporting example cases back to 1962 (Engle v. Vitale). Using these, you certainly did a good job of proving (the point that you apparently set out to prove) that prayer had no Constitutional place in schools. Your research and application of these cases was very good. However, the problem I had with your work was that you (apparently intentionally) omitted any case reference prior to 1962. You certainly know, if you listened to the David Barton tape, that court cases up through about 1947 were decidedly in favor of religious freedom and religious expression (regardless of ones official capacity).
Second, as the Assistant Attorney General responding to questions from the Attorney General, you were unprofessional. If I understand that position, you should answer questions honestly, thoroughly, and without personal bias. You didn't. You really only gave a part answer, the part with which you agreed. If I'd been the AG, you'd have been fired.
Third, your Opinions reflected your personal bias, prejudice, and agenda. I found them consistent with the dialog we've had on the topic. You didn't include a disclaimer stating that these were your personal opinions. I understand that you agree with the contemporary renderings by the courts, but as the front page should be free of the bias and opinion of the reporter, so should such important documents be free personal opinion and bias. I guess I understand how such an opportunity (to advance your agenda) would be hard to pass up. This encroaches on the standard of ethics.
Fourth, the Opinions sounded like they had been written by a prosecuting ACLU attorney. (For me, I found nothing really new in them, except about the Folmar incident.) ACLU literature says the same thing. (Surely, you are not a covert ACLU plant!)
You asked what I thought of them. The above is the naked honesty of my opinion, without the emotions that go with them. My great concern, after reading them, is that perhaps too many people with anti-Christian bias are in positions of public trust, and using their positions to advance their agenda. The dichotomy for me is that I have grown to admire and respect (personally and professionally) the guy who wrote those opinions. I admire and value his intellect, his skills, his savvy, ideas, his insights, and his friendship. How do I resolve the conflict?? I tell myself that in 1989, he really didn't know what the whole story was; therefore, he was doing the best, most professional job he could, at that time. Not only do I think he has learned (more of the real story) since, but he is still learning (and open to learning). It is because I (want to) believe the latter statement to be true, that I invest so much time in trying to help you learn and understand, to see the issue from another perspective. You have political potential. No telling where you'll serve in elective office, if you so choose. Our friendship notwithstanding, I couldn't vote for you (as much as I'd like to otherwise), as long as you held to your hard line anti-Christian attitudes, especially after seeing how they colored your professional work. We talked about knowing one's prejudices and not allowing them to affect how we did our jobs. Your Opinions are perfect examples of what should not be allowed to happen. One might conclude that although writing in your "official capacity," it was reflective of your "individual capacity." And I think my tax money is being used, not to promote religion, but to work counter to the religious freedoms that I hold dear. I resent that.
BTW, did you hear that our tax money is being used to send government personnel to gatherings of homosexuals, that some of them speak at these functions? Regardless of what we individually think of homosexuals and their lifestyles, this should raise your legal and personal (taxpayer) ire. Please don't give me the "you're intolerant" response. When one looks at all the things that the government (with our tax money is promoting without protest from the left, such as pornography through the National Endowment for the Arts), the real intent and agenda of those using the "with my tax money" tack becomes quite evident. That argument is not well received by Christians when opponents of (Christian) religious expression use it. Try to refrain from that argument. There are lots of things that I don't agree with that the government is using my tax money to promote. They cover the spectrum from support of the UN to the operation and tactics of internal bureaucracies such as the EPA and BATF, just to name a few. The point is, the government is using my tax money in ways of which I do not approve. Aside from the ballot box and the written word, I have little recourse. (I forgot to mention those ridiculous kilometer marker signs that have magically sprung up along our roadways (thanks to the Alabama Highway Department) at the cost to us taxpayers of $85 each.)
Once again, I hope my comments didn't upset you. I didn't mean to personally offend you. The overarching objective in giving you my opinion of your work was one of constructive criticism.
Regards,
Frank
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment