Come Let Us Reason Together: 2009

CVIII

Date: Sat Dec 20 09:11:07 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: The Judge....

Judge DeMent has come out last week with an order granting the state's motion to modify in part, changing 12 words of a nearly 4,000 word order, but otherwise denying the motion to stay the injunction pending the appeal.

Haven't done anything in the reading department myself with all the books I've been buying I regret to admit.

So, where were we?

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 10:50:28 0600
From: Frank Grose
To: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Happy New Year

Hi Rob,

The busy holidays will be over by next Monday, and maybe we can get back to our routine. We had a nice Christmas. Got to see all our boys, wives, and children. Ate too much, and gained a couple of unneeded pounds in the process. On the Saturday before Christmas, I made a list of things I wanted to get done over the holidays. I had nearly 30 entries. I still have a few left to finish by the weekend, including completing a desk that I began building in 1985. (Yes, I plead guilty to procrastination.)

I have been thinking about our dialog. Honestly, I don't know how far along we are on this, or if we are making progress toward our goal. What are your thoughts along this line?

Best Regards,

Frank

* * *

- THE END -
(Postscript to Follow)

CVII

Date: Thu Dec 18 07:37:51 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Here's one for you.

There's a religionlaw listerserv "for academics" I subscribe to. Someone posted this. Thought you'd find it ... timely....

Jesus and the Elves

And Joseph went up from Galilee to Bethlehem with Mary, his espoused wife, who was great with child. And she brought forth a son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. And the angel of the Lord spoke to the shepherds and said, "I bring you tidings of great joy. Unto you is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord."

"There's a problem with the angel," said a Pharisee who happened to be strolling by. As he explained to Joseph, angels are widely regarded as religious symbols, and the stable was on public property where such symbols were not allowed to land or even hover.

"And I have to tell you, this whole thing looks to me very much like a Nativity scene," he said sadly. "That's a no no, too." Joseph had a bright idea. "What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?" he said, eager to avoid sectarian strife.

"That would definitely help," said the Pharisee, who knew as well as anyone that whenever a savior appeared, judges usually liked to be on the safe side and surround it with deer or woodland creatures of some sort. "Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too," he said. "No court can resist that."

Mary asked, "What does my son's birth have to do with snowmen?" "Snowpersons," cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion. Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture. "Artistic license," he said. "I've got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter," he quipped. "We're not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full," said Mary. "Whatever," said the painter.

Rum pa pum pum.

Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them. "I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.

With the arrival of 10 child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character.

An older man bustled up, bowling over two merchants, who had been busy debating whether an elf is the same as a fairy and whether the elf/fairy should be shaking hands with Jesus in the crib or merely standing to the side, jumping around like a sports mascot.

"I'd hold off on the reindeer," the man said, explaining that the use of asses and oxen as picturesque backdrops for Nativity scenes carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are "penned environments" where animals are incarcerated against their will. He had no opinion about elves or candy canes.

Signs declaring "Free the Bethlehem 2" began to appear, referring to the obviously exploited ass and ox. Someone said the halo on Jesus' head was elitist. Mary was exasperated. "And what about you, old mother?" she said sharply to an elderly woman. "Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some dumb new age goddess religion?"

"None of the above," said the woman, "I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here." Sure enough, the three wise men rode up. The crowd gasped, "They're all male!" And "Not very multicultural!" "Balthasar here is black," said one of the Magi. "Yes, but how many of you are gay or disabled?" someone shouted. A committee was quickly formed to find an impoverished lesbian wise person among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.

A calm voice said, "Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world." At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see a radiant and confident female face. The woman spoke again: "There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"

Mary said, "You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, 'Hello, it's winter'?" "That's harsh, Mary," said the woman. "Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn't push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will give each other pricey gifts and have big office parties on his birthday. That's not chopped liver."

"Let me get back to you," Mary said.

By John Leo, US News & World Report columnist & author of the book, "Two Steps Ahead of the Thought Police."

CVI

James, Pryor accused of playing politics with prayer
by Dana Beyerle
Montgomery Bureau

MONTGOMERY — The plaintiff in the DeKalb County school prayer case accused Gov. Fob James and Attorney General Bill Pryor of playing politics after refusing an offer to amend part of a federal judge's injunction.

"This is about re-election, folks," Pamela Sumners, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said.

Sumners agreed to change objectionable parts of U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent's Oct. 29 order in the prayer case but was rebuffed by lawyers for James and the state.

"I offered to modify two particular phrases, and they turned me down flat and said 'We're appealing,'" Sumners said. "This is our tax dollars at work."

Deputy Attorney General Richard Allen defended Pryor's decision to appeal part of DeMent's injunction to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Bill Pryor does not make decisions based on political reasons," Allen said. "He makes decisions based on facts and the law."

The phrases Sumners agreed to change would have softened the circumstances under which students could exercise religious activities in DeKalb County schools.

Sumners said she suspects other motives in James and Pryor's refusal to compromise.

"If you say you're concerned about student rights and an overture is rejected, there is no other reason than politics," Sumners said.

Pryor hired an outside law firm, the American Center for Law and Justice, at no charge to appeal parts of DeMent's order. Pryor did not appeal DeMent's March ruling, which overturned Alabama's student-led prayer law.

Stuart Roth, chairman of the ACLJ in Mobile, said he does not believe that Sumner's offer would have changed DeMent's injunction enough to make a difference.

"She just wants to look at only two points," Roth said.

Roth said the state is asking only for a partial stay on narrow issues involving free-speech rights of students in DeKalb County, where DeMent left detailed instructions concerning religious activities.

Sumners told Roth the parties are not going to agree on the general student-initiated-prayer issue. But, Sumners said, they could try to agree to further identify "officially sanctioned" events for students that would not violate church-and-state separation issues.
* * *
Sumners also took issue with a Monday press conference Pryor held with state school Superintendent Ed Richardson to outline the do's and don'ts of school prayer.

Sumners said the list of approved activities for students is exactly the same as the allowed activities DeMent culled from 30 years of law and Supreme Court rulings concerning bans on officially sanctioned religious activities in public schools.

Richardson said school officials needed to know what type of plays or musical performances they could hold after two school districts said they would cancel any Christmas activities because of DeMent's ruling.

"DeMent is not the grinch who stole Christmas," Sumners said.

DeMent said students can engage in silent prayer, distribute religious information, wear religious symbols or announce religious events, as long as similar activities of a non-religious nature are allowed. He ruled that school officials cannot lead or allow religious activities, however.

"Politics, politics and politics explain why the attorney general tells citizens that his 'guidelines,' identical to the principles and sometimes the language of Judge DeMent's injunction, are different from the 'unconstitutional' order of Judge DeMent," Sumners said.

The Tuscaloosa News, Sunday December 14, 1997

Moore: Remember 'In God We Trust?'
By Lee Ann Smith
Eagle Staff Writer

TROY — Etowah County Circuit Judge Roy Moore watches as the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court begin sessions with prayer.

He looks on as the president of the United States takes the oath of office with his hand on the Bible.

"But our children," Moore says, "can't pray in school."

Moore has gained national attention in his fight to keep the 10 Commandments on display in his courtroom and open his sessions in prayer. He was sued in 1995 by the American Civil Liberties Union for his actions.

Moore appealed the case to the Alabama Supreme Court on Dec. 30, 1996.

"How can our children be forbidden to pray in school when we are a people who profess 'In God We Trust?'" Moore asked during a Thursday speaking engagement in Troy. "It's not only on our money in our pocket, it's our national motto declared by law in 1956. We are one nation under God."

Believing in the right of religious freedoms, Moore said he disagrees with federal court judge Ira DeMent, who barred school-organized or officially sanctioned religious activities in DeKalb County schools.

"I agree with the governor of this state 110 percent," Moore said. Gov. Fob James has said repeatedly that prayer in school is a state issue, not a decision for the federal courts....

The Dothan Eagle, Sunday December 14, 1997

Nativity scene closes traditional Christmas show
by Joey Bunch
Staff Reporter

BON SECOUR — Angels flanked Joseph and Mary as they admired the Baby Jesus in the manger Tuesday night, just as kindergarten actors have portrayed them for more than 50 years here at Swift School.

Though it focused a statewide controversy and brought all the regional media to the schools' annual Christmas pageant, the Nativity scene held the spotlight for barely two minutes near the middle of the 90-minute program.

"I'm glad it was in there," said Wanda Findley, whose grandson was in the pageant. "It could have been longer, but I still think this was one of the best shows we've ever had.

Some residents of this close-knit south Baldwin County community had thought the closing curtain had fallen on the annual Nativity scene after a federal judge's ruling in October prohibited "school-organized or officially sanctioned religious activity."

Baldwin County school Superintendent Larry Newton, with the help of school board attorney Fred Granade, revised the script two weekends ago to put the portrayal of Jesus' birth on par with secular symbols in the pageant.

Besides the manger scene, the show, "Christmas Traditions," included a little bit of everything that has to do with the season: the Christmas tree, St. Nicholas, reindeer, carols, presents, even a musical tribute to the "Three Little Pigs," with a dancing wolf in a Santa suit.

Denise D'Oliveira, spokeswoman for the county school system, said the Nativity scene previously had been the final scene of the show.

Not a smidgen of disappointment was stirring amid the standing-room-only crowd of more than 200 in the school cafeteria, however. The pageant closed with a standing ovation....

The Mobile Register, Wednesday December 17, 1997

School Prayer
DeMent answers critics
The Associated Press

MONTGOMERY — A federal judge, critical of "political posturing" by state officials over his school prayer order, refused to shelve major parts of it, saying Attorney General Bill Pryor wrongly claims the order prohibits a wide variety of religious activities by public school students.

U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent said Wednesday many of the student activities cited by Prior as banned are actually permissible — including singing "Silent Night" at a school Christmas program — and he scolded Gov. Fob James and others for helping foster uncertainty about expressions of faith in public schools.

"The political posturing that has followed this case encourages divisiveness and apprehension, benefits neither the citizens nor the schoolchildren of Alabama, and clouds the real issues raised by this suit: the coercive religious practices engaged in or allowed by state officials in DeKalb County," DeMent wrote in his 78-page decision.

DeMent's ruling came on a request by Pryor for key parts of his Oct. 29 order to be frozen pending appeals to higher courts. Pryor said the sections were vague and overbroad. DeMent basically rejected the request, granting it only for a tiny part.

Pryor later Wednesday claimed "a partial victory" and promised to seek further relief from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. He said DeMent has now issued 164 pages of clarifying orders that show the original injunction "was unclear in many respects."

The October order, issued in a suit brought by an assistant principal with a school-age son, found illegally coercive, officially sanctioned religious activities in DeKalb County schools.

DeMent's decision Wednesday said DeKalb County officials have taken proper steps to comply with the October order but that actions taken by some, including the governor, make it clear that the rights of those who filed suit would be violated if the order was shelved during appeals.

The judge cited James' Nov. 4 statement that he "will resist Judge DeMent's order by every legal and political means with every ounce of strength I possess." The judge said legal resistance is perfectly proper, but made clear he feels politicization of the issue is wrong.

The state's position, said DeMent, "essentially argues for preservation of majoritarian will. As the attorney general should know, however, the will of the majority makes for sound argument in election disputes and political grandstanding; not in the analysis of First Amendment jurisprudence."

The judge's order Wednesday adopted language of Birmingham lawyer Pamela Sumners, who represents DeKalb County educator Michael Chandler in the suit to stop forced lunch prayers and other coercive religious activities.

It cites numerous religious activities that Pryor said have been banned by DeMent but in fact are permissible, according to Wednesday's order.

They include: reading the Bible in study hall, class discussion of the meaning of Christmas and Easter, saying grace before lunch and distributing religious materials to classmates during non-instructional time.

Those activities are permissible, the court said, so long as prayers and Bible readings are private expressions and not school-organized, and distribution of church materials are subject to time, place and manner restrictions of non-religious materials.

The judge also said Pryor was wrong in saying hypothetically that a valedictorian couldn't explain the importance of Mother Teresa to her academic success. Such inspirational speech is not a devotional, and is permitted, the order said.

Also, he wrote, in a search of previous orders "the court can find no reference to a ban on the singing of 'Silent Night' or other songs at a school Christmas play or concert."

Among other examples: A parent can pray for an injured player while the parent is seated in the stands, contrary to Pryor's claim.

However, DeMent said a football game incident on Nov. 7, after his order was issued, showed the extent of violations in DeKalb County. The order said prior to the Sylvania High School game, all of the students were asked to go onto the field, with band members and cheerleaders, and hold hands in a circle, to protest the prayer order; a voice over the public address system said he had the support of the governor and later led the students in the Lord's prayer.

The Birmingham Post-Herald, Thursday December 18, 1997

CV

EDITOR’S NOTE: Because of the length of this post, there will be a few days’ delay before the next post. The next post will appear February 12, 2009, Guam time.

Date: Thu Dec 11 11:47:13 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Delayed Response

Glad to hear from you. I *think* I can keep this short.

At 10:48 PM 12/10/97 0600, you wrote:

Let me clarify something. I don't believe you are personally "anti-Christian." Some of your work may be perceived that way (referring to my take on your '89 memos), and it may well serve that purpose (from a Christian perspective) in the grand scheme of things. No, you aren't anti-Christian any more than I am anti-Semitic.

I've always understood that you don't think me anti-Christian and I hope you understand I don't think you anti-Semitic. As a matter of perception, given what you elaborate on below, which I had come to understand in the last few weeks more clearly anyway, I can see why the "right" might think things like my memos are "anti-Christian." I think what's gonna' have to give, perception wise, is the "right's perception. And I think I see where the schism is, discussed below.

Boy, I WISH you could find an example other than Moore, but he is illustrative of the issues. And he is representative of the political stand with which I vehemently disagree, for reasons suggested by Matthew as well as the law. I do give "Christians" generally the benefit of the doubt, and as I give you the benefit of the doubt, I can transfer it to Moore.

When I profess that Jesus Christ is my savior, I try to live the way the Bible instructs, and do what I think would be pleasing to Him. As such, I cannot and will not do anything that even gives the appearance of denying my belief in God (the triune God).

OK, I understand this.

The cutting edge of the "anti-religion" (meaning Christianity) is when a Christian gets put in a situation where he MUST make that choice. It may not seem like (to a non-Christian) that there is a choice being demanded, but there is. I know what you were trying to get across a few paragraphs above when you said, "...it was just a historical and literary representation of the origins of the holiday..." For a Christian to say, "A nativity scene is JUST a historical representation..." Is, in effect, a denial or your true belief in the deity of Jesus. Without that belief, the very basis of your Christianity is gone. One might agree that it is "a historical..." but the word "just" puts it into an entirely different category.

Yes, and I understand this quite clearly too. That asking Christians to disavow the religious purpose or to include a secular articulation of the reasons for the religious act would be to, in effect, deny God. I understand that. Where I'll disagree with you is on the question of choice and "who started it."

Perhaps in your view, Judge Moore should have complied with the order to "surround the Ten Commandments with OTHER historical documents." But the inclusion of the word "other" (were I in Judge Moore's place) would have moved the order from "reasonable" to the "confrontational." When you are in a corner and challenged, you only have two choices, fight or run. A good Christian will never run.

The problem in Moore's case in particular is that Moore disavows ever having them up there for other than a religious purpose. There's lots of law supporting the right to display religious icons, PROVIDED they're in a non religion promoting context, that is: do not promote or endorse religion by the government.

I know you don't want me getting off on Moore, but he's the example you're using. If Moore's in a corner, it's one he painted. There is nothing in his religion that requires him to display his religious icons in his place of work, is there? I think I've demonstrated to you that those commandments are no different than putting a cross, a crucifix or a picture of Jesus in the same place. It is a religious icon, using government resources to promote his religion.

There is nothing in his religion that requires him to be a judge or to use government resources to promote his religion, is there? What he does as a man, an individual, is his own business. What he does as public official is mine. He has no constitutional right to use government resources to establish his private religion in our courtrooms.

On the other hand, there are requirements in the law, such as compulsory school attendance, or being subpoenaed as a juror or witness, or paying taxes. And when Moore uses those powers as a government official to establish his religion, under the guise of his free exercise rights, he is breaking the law, and from what I can see, is being a hypocrite to his faith.

This is the hitting your head against the brick wall thing. Moore wants free reign and license to use government resources to promote his private religion as a government official, and when he's told that GOVERNMENT can't do that, he's claiming HIS religion is being attacked. In short, he started it by turning a public courtroom into a house of Christian prayer. He wasn't backed into a corner. He knew exactly what he was doing, and what kind of political fervor he was igniting. Puts Matthew into context quite nicely, I think.

Some probably thought the Hebrew children foolish. They'd probably be counseled today, "Hey, just go through the motions. It is only ceremonial, anyway. You can still be loyal to God in your hearts; just bow with your bodies." They wouldn't compromise when it came to their relationship with God. Daniel was told not to pray. Yes, he could have hid himself and prayed, but that was not his custom. The king was trying to restrict his religious expression (and I believe he was a member of the court, a.k.a. a government representative), and with that he could not comply.

Bear in mind that Moore's private religious expression is not the issue, although he makes it one, and it's an easy trap to keep falling into. It is solely his use of government resources to promote his brand of religion that is the issue. He can do anything he wants on his own time, in his home, his church, in other public venues like public streets, even in his own chambers, anything at all. What he can't do is use the power of government and the judiciary to promote his religion in the courtroom, which is what he expressly has said he's doing.

(I know I'm using the word "promote" a lot. It's shorthand from the cases.)

When the judge said "OTHER historical" Moore had no real choice, since the Ten Commandments are NOT historical documents, for him to surround them with historical documents (in compliance with the order) would have been for him to admit the Commandments WERE historical. The judge could have left out the word "other" and may have gotten compliance.

Interesting supposition. And I do understand the perception that to comply with the order, for him and other Christians, *could* have been interpreted as a disavowal of faith. It's missing a link in the logic chain, though. That he admits unabashedly that the primary purpose that religious icon is there is to promote his faith in God is really what makes the violation so clear. Unlike your examples from the Bible, no one, repeat: no one, repeat: no one has ever required of Moore, or students, or anyone else in any of these cases, that they disavow their personal beliefs.

This is where, perception wise, Christians have to give. This is the hysteria and hyperbole factor that has to be overcome. The perception has to have a basis in reality, and Christians like Moore have yet to be able to point to anything in any order to support the objective reasonableness of their fears that they are required to disavow their faith in God, as is true in the biblical examples.

Christians are being killed in other parts of the world because they will not renounce their belief in Jesus Christ. When the choices are only "Deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ or else.", there is no contest for a true Christian.

I realize we're talking about perceptions. But where has anyone ever said "renounce your belief in Christ" or "deny your God"? Seriously. That's the hysterical part. If that were remotely true, I'd be the first to champion your argument that it's unconstitutional. The courts cannot simply accept the reasonableness of the perception at face value in the face of specific evidence to the contrary, as is found in Judge DeMent's order, discussed below.

Being in a position to advise judges as you are, help them to understand they need to give a Christian an acceptable option. Help them to understand a acceptable solution MUST not put the Christian in a position where he, in effect, is denying the Lord and his faith in Jesus Christ. In failing to do that, the Judge is, in the eyes of Christians, committing an unconstitutional act by overstepping his rightful authority and denying them their constitutionally assured rights to religious expression. Much diplomacy and Christian advise should be sought by a judge faced with such a pending decision. You know the saying that reality is how you perceive it? Try to see how Christians perceive the reality. There are things that we all hold more dear than life itself. A Christian's love for and loyalty to God are in that category.

The crisis in the Moore case was not created by Moore, but by the judge in his (perhaps) unfortunate wording of the order. I see Judge Moore cast into the role of a modern day Daniel. He was ordered to compromise on the uncompromiseable.

I really could not disagree more. And this where a lot of the emotion comes from for me. Moore pushed the envelope by claiming his right to free expression supercedes the establishment clause. Neither supercedes the other. They are different rights. One protects the right to express yourself without government interference (the expression clause); the other prevents THE GOVERNMENT ONLY from endorsing or promoting religion (the establishment clause). It is only Moore's actions as a government official that are at issue, not his private expression. There's nothing in his religion that I'm aware of that requires he use the trappings of government in order to express himself.

Now, I'm sure you are bursting with legal comebacks regarding the Moore case. Please restrain yourself.

Boy, I sure was. ; )

Moore and the merits of his case are not at issue in this dialog. The purpose is to help you understand the Christian way of thought and how certain words or phrases can make a world of difference to the Christian. Was the judge's words thoughtless usage, or was he deliberately trying to make Moore compromise on his religion? I hope the former.

They really were neither thoughtless nor provocative. They were a clear statement of what THE GOVERNMENT can and cannot do, not what Moore can and cannot do. If Moore is incapable of understanding that distinction, then truly, he needs to step down from the bench. I understand what you say about the "Christian way of thought." Truly, I do.

As an aside, what compromise to accommodate his personal expression do you suggest? A disclaimer on the wall perhaps? "This is Roy Moore's decorations, not Judge Moore's." If that's so, he's making it a public forum for display by anyone, any citizen, any group. Which means that under the free speech clause, anyone would have a right to put what they want up there, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. If he said "no" on the basis of non-Christian content, or any other content based reason, he'd be in violation of the free speech clause for content based discrimination. The Pinnette and Lamb's Chapel cases talk about this. And if the Christian version of the commandments are OK, why not a Catholic crucifix? And if we make room for the crucifix, are not the Satan worshipers entitled to hang it upside down and paint pentagrams? They have a right to free expression too, no? The question isn't what the individual is allowed to do, but what the government official is allowed to do.

Regardless, the reaction by the right is due to the perception of the latter. If I could talk with the judge who gave the order in the Moore case, I'd encourage him to find a way to give Moore and acceptable way to "save face" before God. The same goes for other judges ruling on religious liberty cases.

You should understand that there is nary a judge out there who deals with these cases who does not try and do just that. I promise you. Each one that has ever had a case like this would like to be the one to offer the solution to make everyone happy. But we'll never make everyone happy, because the issue is so inherently politically divisive. Otherwise, we'd all be worshiping the same God to begin with. The compromise to save face is the order that if the commandments are to remain, they may do so only in context with "other" secular objects. Nothing in that order requires Judge Moore to disavow his personal beliefs about the sanctity of the icon. It is his religion that brooks no compromise on that. And it is he who must give and reconsider the validity of his perceptions. Removing religious icons from public property, or displaying them in a secular context, does not require Moore to renounce his God. I understand what you say very clearly, but that is a *fact* that he needs to grapple with and come to terms with. It's the big lie, no offense to what Christians perceive.

Has any of this made sense to you? Can you understand such orders cannot be complied with? See, it's like this. I'm going to spend a lot more time with God, than I am with the government of the United States. Forced to a choice, the government will always take second place... always! A wise judge will avoid forcing such a choice. Now if you tell me that is foolishness for a Christian to see things that way, you have not understood, and you could be viewed as challenging my Christian beliefs.

It's not foolishness. You believe what you believe. You're constitutionally entitled to believe what you believe and no one can take that away from you. That's the free exercise clause. Government officials, as officials, do not have free exercise rights. Those belong to the individual, not the official.

And yes, it makes sense to me what you say, or at least, I understand it. To me, however, the logic is irrational so long as the establishment clause (official action prohibitions) are confused by people like Moore with the free exercise (personal, non-official liberties) issues.

Only by coming to grips with the reality that prohibitions on what the government can do are not the same as restrictions on what individuals can do, can the bigger dialog move forward. It is a perception problem, I agree. Movement has to come from the right (with our help), because we're talking about the objective reasonableness of that perception.

In other news, and this may help, Judge DeMent's injunction is now available. Note, that the caps are all in the original. Note with what special pains Judge DeMent addresses what is NOT prohibited by his order. All of the free expression rights that the "right" makes such issue about are specifically protected. The only thing that is forbidden is when the school system itself, or through its teachers, or by turning over control to others, endorses or promotes religion.

CIV

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 22:48:20
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Delayed Response

Rob,

I want to (finally) respond to some very interesting comments you made last week. I want to talk a little about the "softer approach" concept. Here goes:

I think I really am beginning to understand and appreciate, thanks to many of our discussions. Which makes grappling with the issue difficult as I look for solutions, because understanding where they're coming from I'm not boxing them in with labels. A lot of my focus with you has been to persuade you that my politics are not "anti-Christian," that I do in fact respect your sincerely held religious beliefs, that my views of the constitution are not antithetical to your views of your relationship with God. If I can get through to you, maybe you and I can get through to the rest of the "right." And that street definitely goes two ways. As you get through to me, and you do, I take the message to the "left." Interestingly, when I put your objections to the "homosexual promotion" in algebraic terms, a light went on. So, while we didn't mean to go off on that tangent, it was actually quite helpful in finding a way to understand your beliefs without labeling you a "whacko." I've been trying to apply that formula to some of the other issues we've been dealing with. Sometimes I see it, sometimes I'm not sure.

You said quite a lot in the above paragraph. I feel like celebrating! On previous occasions, you've pointed out progress that I have made. I see some real progress in you as well. And that is our mutual goal!

I said you may not be able to appreciate a Christian's stand on some issues. You seemed to want to try. So let me (speaking only for myself and my perception of situations others like Judge Moore finds himself in) try to help you out. (Drop your strong anti-Judge Moore feelings for a little while and just listen and try to understand what I'm attempting to convey.) When I profess that Jesus Christ is my savior, I try to live the way the Bible instructs, and do what I think would be pleasing to Him. As such, I cannot and will not do anything that even gives the appearance of denying my belief in God (the triune God). You know the story of the three Hebrew children and the fiery furnace, and the story of Daniel going to the lion's den. All they had to do to avoid such treatment was to deny their God. The Bible teaches that if we deny Jesus before men, He will deny us before His father. (I don't have a way right now of finding the verse that supports that.) The cutting edge of the "anti-religion" (meaning Christianity) is when a Christian gets put in a situation where he MUST make that choice. It may not seem like (to a non-Christian) that there is a choice being demanded, but there is. I know what you were trying to get across a few paragraphs above when you said, "...it was just a historical and literary representation of the origins of the holiday..."

For a Christian to say, "A nativity scene is JUST a historical representation..." Is, in effect, a denial or your true belief in the deity of Jesus. Without that belief, the very basis of your Christianity is gone. One might agree that it is "a historical..." but the word "just" puts it into an entirely different category. Perhaps in your view, Judge Moore should have complied with the order to "surround the Ten Commandments with OTHER historical documents." But the inclusion of the word "other" (were I in Judge Moore's place) would have moved the order from "reasonable" to the "confrontational." When you are in a corner and challenged, you only have two choices, fight or run. A good Christian will never run. Some probably thought the Hebrew children foolish. They'd probably be counseled today, "Hey, just go through the motions. It is only ceremonial, anyway. You can still be loyal to God in your hearts; just bow with your bodies." They wouldn't compromise when it came to their relationship with God. Daniel was told not to pray. Yes, he could have hid himself and prayed, but that was not his custom. The king was trying to restrict his religious expression (and I believe he was a member of the court, a.k.a. a government representative), and with that he could not comply. When the judge said "OTHER historical" Moore had no real choice, since the Ten Commandments are NOT historical documents, for him to surround them with historical documents (in compliance with the order) would have been for him to admit the Commandments WERE historical. The judge could have left out the word "other" and may have gotten compliance. Christians are being killed in other parts of the world because they will not renounce their belief in Jesus Christ. When the choices are only "Deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ or else.", there is no contest for a true Christian. Being in a position to advise judges as you are, help them to understand they need to give a Christian an acceptable option. Help them to understand a acceptable solution MUST not put the Christian in a position where he, in effect, is denying the Lord and his faith in Jesus Christ. In failing to do that, the Judge is, in the eyes of Christians, committing an unconstitutional act by overstepping his rightful authority and denying them their constitutionally assured rights to religious expression. Much diplomacy and Christian advice should be sought by a judge faced with such a pending decision. You know the saying that reality is how you perceive it?

Try to see how Christians perceive the reality. There are things that we all hold more dear than life itself. A Christian's love for and loyalty to God are in that category. The crisis in the Moore case was not created by Moore, but by the judge in his (perhaps) unfortunate wording of the order. I see Judge Moore cast into the role of a modern day Daniel. He was ordered to compromise on the uncompromiseable.

Now, I'm sure you are bursting with legal comebacks regarding the Moore case. Please restrain yourself. Moore and the merits of his case are not at issue in this dialog. The purpose is to help you understand the Christian way of thought and how certain words or phrases can make a world of difference to the Christian. Was the judge's words thoughtless usage, or was he deliberately trying to make Moore compromise on his religion? I hope the former. Regardless, the reaction by the right is due to the perception of the latter. If I could talk with the judge who gave the order in the Moore case, I'd encourage him to find a way to give Moore and acceptable way to "save face" before God. The same goes for other judges ruling on religious liberty cases.

Regards,

Frank

CIII

Religion guidelines please lawyer
Alabama officials try to clear up school issue
The Associated Press
From staff and wire reports

MONTGOMERY — A lawyer for the plaintiffs in a case over school prayer says she is pleased with guidelines Attorney General Bill Pryor and Education Superintendent Ed Richardson have drafted to help officials understand what religious activities are legally permissible in Alabama's public schools.

The memorandum was faxed Monday to all school officials — except those in DeKalb County — to help defuse some of the controversy that followed U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent's school prayer order issued Oct. 29.

"I'm quite confident that many of our schools overreacted to the order," Richardson said. "Teachers don't know what to do and reacted too far in one direction."

Recent debate over whether the Swift School in Bon Secour could stage a Nativity scene and whether the Dothan High School band could play religious songs at its Christmas music program proved there was a need for the guidelines, Pryor said.

Pamela Sumners, a Birmingham lawyer who represents the plaintiffs in the DeKalb County case, said she did not object to any of the guidelines because they read very close to DeMent's ruling.

"It's simply the law that you can sing 'Silent Night" and you can sing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer'," Sumners said. "None of this would be difficult to understand if people would stop confusing the facts."

Pryor and Richardson Monday morning urged school officials not to go too far in interpreting Dement's order for DeKalb County schools.

"I really believe we need to lower the rhetoric and not have teachers caught in between elected officials and the judiciary," said Richardson, "because that will not do anything but cause them to overreact even more defensively and restrictively."
* * *
Permissible school activities

A list of permissible activities issued by Attorney General Bill Pryor and state Superintendent of Education Ed Richardson in the school prayer controversy:

Students may voluntarily engage in individual or group prayer during noninstructional time or at school-sponsored events. This includes individual or group prayer before or after athletic events. School officials (e.g. coaches) should neither encourage nor discourage individual or group prayer. Organization or direction of a prayer by a school official would not be appropriate.

Students may voluntarily engage in religious discussions during noninstructional time or at school-sponsored events. Students may speak to and attempt to persuade their peers about religious topics just as they do with regard to political topics.

Students may express religious beliefs in reports, homework and art work, and other written and oral assignments, which should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance.

Students may distribute religious literature to their schoolmates in accordance with all time, place and manner restrictions applicable to the distribution of literature that is unrelated to school curriculum or activities.

Students may display religious messages or symbols on items of clothing (e.g. cross, menorah, Star of David, etc.) to the same extent that they may display comparable nonreligious messages or symbols on items of clothing. Students also may wear particular attire (e.g. yarmulkes, head scarves, etc.) during the school day or at school-sponsored events as part of the student's religious practices consistent with board polices and state law.

Students in secondary schools may have announcements of meetings of a religious nature conveyed in the same manner that announcements are made for meetings of other, nonreligious groups (e.g. public address system, school newspaper, etc.).

Teachers may teach about religion, including the Bible and other scripture, provided that such teaching concerns the history of religion, the Bible (or other scripture) as literature, and/or the role of religion in the history of the United States. The use of religious symbols (e.g. cross, menorah, symbols of Native American religions) is permitted as a teaching aid or resource provided such symbols are displayed as an example of the cultural and religious subject being taught.

A fixture or symbol that is traditionally associated with a particular religion (e.g. nativity scene, menorah, etc.) may be included as a "prop" in a school holiday production to the same degree that nonreligious props are used in school productions, provided such symbols are displayed as an example of the cultural and religious heritage of the holiday.

Traditional holiday music may be included in school productions (e.g. choral events, band activities, etc.) to the same extent that other nonholiday music is included in school productions.

The intent of these guidelines is to prescribe a course of study, conduct and related activities that do not prescribe directly or indirectly a single religion, belief or observance and that are consistent with the prevailing decisions by the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Huntsville Times, Tuesday December 9, 1998

CII

Analysis
James takes the pulpit on religion
By Ted Bryant
Birmingham Post-Herald

If Gov. Fob James is running for re-election next year, his issue seems clearly defined: The practice of religion in public schools.

That's something the U.S. Supreme Court says can't be done, but it is an issue likely to play well with Alabama's conservative Christians.

The issue is popping up again and again as local school officials issue caveats about praying in schools and, recently, about Christmas plays and songs.

A traditional, live nativity scene was threatened in a Baldwin County school, then singing of religious Christmas carols was questioned in Dothan schools.

The conflicts are arising as a result of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent of Montgomery against vocal prayers, Bible devotions or other school-organized or officially sanctioned religious activities in DeKalb County schools.

When the singing of religious Christmas carols in Dothan schools was questioned, James hastily called a news conference to say the "full authority" of his office will be behind the freedom to sing carols.

James had already planned to be in Dothan to attend a graduation for a drug awareness program for school students.

On Wednesday, two attorneys for the Dothan Board of Education said religious Christmas carols could not be sung at a school event under DeMent's order although the ruling does not appear to address singing carols.

Before James' news conference, Jim Holland, Dothan school board chairman, told schools they could proceed with whatever Christmas programs they had planned.

During the news conference, with some reporters listening in via telephone from across the state, James said the issue of separation of church and state is vital.

"This issue is probably the most important — not probably — it is the most important issue of the day," James said.

At another point, he said, "The issue is that a federal judge has issued an order that is illegal, is not in the Constitution and needs to be defended against in every way."

In a motel conference room packed with supporters, James urged students to proceed with singing such carols as "Silent Night," "Joy to the World," and "O' Little Town of Bethlehem."

Challenging lawyers and judges, James said, "I beg of them to show me where ... the Constitution of the United States or the Alabama Constitution prohibits the acknowledgement of God in public places. I want somebody to show me that."

James also talked at length about a 34-page letter he had written to Judge DeMent earlier this year claiming the federal courts have no jurisdiction over religious matters as they relate to states.

The theme of prayer in schools has been a familiar one for James since his first term in office in 1979-83. At that time, he recalled Thursday, a federal judge in Mobile upheld school prayer, but the ruling was struck down at higher levels.

And it's a them he can be expected to repeat moving into the 1998 election year when James will likely run for a third term although he has made no formal announcement of his intentions.

"I don't know where this journey will take us. I do believe with all my heart that we are legally and constitutionally correct," James said Thursday, invoking the names of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln as his "secret lawyers."

The Birmingham Post-Herald, Friday December 5, 1997

Prayer ruling could end Pike County suit
By Malcomb McDaniels
MONTGOMERY ADVERTISER

A federal judge's ruling in the DeKalb County school prayer case could bring resolution to what some see as the state's next battle on religion in public schools.

Attorneys in a lawsuit filed by Wayne and Sue Willis, the parents of three Jewish Pike County school students, have agreed to discuss mediation of the case, according to an order by U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent on Thursday. Both sides said DeMent's DeKalb County ruling answered many of the questions raised in their case.

The Willis' claim that their children have been forced to bow their heads for Christian prayers, and were prohibited from wearing Star of David lapels and yarmulkes and harassed because of their Jewish faith. They have asked the court to issue an injunction that would force Pike County school officials to halt religious practices in the school and end the alleged harassment....

The Montgomery Advertiser, Saturday December 6, 1997

Yule songs may be included in school programs
By Dana Beyerle
Montgomery Bureau

MONTGOMERY — State schools Superintendent Ed Richardson and Attorney General Bill Pryor on Monday plan to tell school officials they can include traditional Christmas carols in yuletide programs.

Richardson said Friday that the action is necessary because "there was so much confusion out in the schools and I felt like so many have overreacted" to a federal court ruling on school prayer.

Richardson said he researched the legal situation concerning religion in schools and concluded that an official statement is in order. That way, he said, Christmas music programs may include songs besides novelty tunes such as "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer."

Attorney General Bill Pryor said he wants to ensure that school officials understand that a federal ruling in a school prayer case involves only one school system.

U.S. District Judge Ira DeMent this year ruled in a lawsuit that most religious activities in school were prohibited under the federal and state constitutions. He outlined prohibited activity in an injunction that applies to the DeKalb County school system.

"I've said that parts of the ruling are wrong, but in the meantime, I want to make sure school officials are not overreacting," Pryor said.

The lawyer for the Civil Liberties Union of Alabama who filed the lawsuit said some religious activities are allowed.

Attorney Pamela Sumners said if students are performing a Christmas program that includes secular songs such as "Jingle Bells," they could add traditional Christmas carols.

"If they were totally, totally religious, and if they were doing nothing but a birth of Jesus play and then a preacher came in and said prayers, that's not allowed during school time," Sumners said. "But if the PTA wanted to do it at 7:30 at night, that's OK."

Richardson's decision came one day after Gov. Fob James told city school officials in Dothan to put religious songs back in a high school Christmas music program.

James announced the action after school attorneys told Dothan High School officials not to allow religious material in the Christmas program. School attorneys were reacting to DeMent's injunction.

"The key is religion has played a major role in our culture, our values and laws in our country, and we felt to include that in programs, there is nothing wrong with the songs," Richardson said.

Religious songs such as "Silent Night" and "Away in a Manger" could be included in school programs "as long as it isn't a purely religious activity," he said.

"There are a number of activities which schools think they cannot do which they can and stay within the confines of the (judge's) religious order," Richardson said.

James told Dothan students to "proceed with Christmas as has traditionally been practiced in this great state." It is wrong to forbid traditional Christmas carols from school programs, He said.

The Tuscaloosa News, Saturday December 6, 1997

Nativity scene OK'd
Baldwin school officials say
script will pass court
guidelines and be well
received by audience
By JOEY BUNCH
Staff Reporter

BON SECOUR — The Christmas show will go on at Swift School next week, and it will include a portrayal of Jesus' birth that is government-approved.

Parents voted 29-27 Thursday to allow Swift to stage the play which meant it had to comply with new federal court guidelines about religious expression at school-sponsored events.

Baldwin County school system leaders approved the play's script after Superintendent Larry Newton did a stint as playwright Thursday night.

Swift Principal Linda Capps sent a possible script — written by school secretary Donna Willis — to Newton on Thursday afternoon. Newton took the script home and wrote in a manger scene that he believed would pass legal muster.

On Friday, school board attorney Fred Granade and members of his Bay Minette law firm looked over the script.

"I certainly believe it complies with the federal court ruling" and will be well-received by "everyone who sees it," Newton said Friday afternoon. "We did not in any way demean the Nativity scene, and I feel sure everyone will be happy with the way it's presented."

* * *
Newton wouldn't give away the story line, or elaborate on how it will differ from past Christmas presentations that featured children dressed as Mary, Joseph, wise men, shepherds and angels, accompanied by carols sung by the audience.

"I wouldn't want to spoil the mystery for anyone who would want to come and see it," Newton said.

The play will be held at the school Thursday, although the time hasn't been set.

Karen Nelson, vice president of the school's Parent-Teacher Organization, was ecstatic Friday afternoon after learning the Nativity would remain in the script.

Three of Mrs. Nelson's four children have performed in the Nativity scene. Her youngest will start school at Swift next year.

She said some people in the close-knit Bon Secour community have become annoyed by the media attention.

Mrs. Nelson believes, however, that the celebrity focused on the Nativity scene was preordained.

"This has been in the Lord's hands from the beginning," she said. "If there's no Christ in Christmas, then why have the play? I think the Lord wanted all eyes on him at Christmas."

The Mobile Register, Saturday December 6, 1997

CI

Date: Wed Dec 03 17:20:16 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Today's updates.

At 03:15 PM 12/3/97 0600, you wrote:

We've been around the "Pike County" pole a number of times already. Serious question here: Did the school administrators, in fact, actively encourage, allow, or condone the practice of those kid who were doing the harrassing? Were they just passive and "looked the other way?" Without attempting to defend them at all, I just want to examine your assertions here. I have a hard time rationalizing a situation where a teacher or principal would not try to put a stop to harassment in general, much less for one's religious beliefs. If they really did actively condone or passively allow it to continue, I am firmly in your camp.

We're talking about Pike County? I'd say the whole "benign neglect" atmosphere created a situation of "actively condoning" it. I don't think they "encouraged" it by any means, just that the variety of things added up to give the other children tacit permission to be more than hurtful. Had the school officials acted quickly to address some of it instead of saying "kids will be kids" (which is pretty much how they looked at it until they got sued) it'd be different.

To be fair to you while we're speculating, I'd not be too surprised if the administrators in Kentucky didn't look the other way if they were in fact aware the prayer group was indeed being mocked. We don't know how much who knew. Assuming they did, there may have been concern that if they intervened they'd have been considered promoting and participating in the prayer group which would be verboten. Even still, it would not be exactly the same thing as creating an atmosphere (as is alleged in Pike County) where the administration's benign neglect dismissed painting swastikas on the kids' lockers as just "kids will be kids." The point is, that if it IS true, perhaps we can empathize with the other minorities a little better, and most importantly ask ourselves where do we go from here.

You and I would agree generally that kids should be able to express themselves and their religion. That's the "free exercise" part of the first amendment which is a separate clause for legal analysis from the "establishment" clause. Exercise is what the kids do, establishment is what the school/government isn't supposed to do. Our dialog has focused exclusively on the establishment issues. What we'll see in the cases to come is the courts grappling with the accommodation of free exercise rights in the "no establishment" setting.

“Don't you think that whoever is doing the mocking, whether atheists of Christians in Kentucky or Christians of Jews in Pike County, ‘kids will be kids’ is simply not an answer? That it is something that needs to be addressed?”

I think you must have read far more into my initial and subsequent use of the "kids will be kids" phrase than I ever intended. I have never offered that as an excuse for bad behavior. I don't condone that sort of thing. I never put up with it (if I knew of it) from my children. I use the term as a fact of basic human behavior. "The sky is blue." is a similar factual statement (except it is very gray and drippy right now).

I wasn't directing that at you. I was just addressing that argument generally, since we both see it, trying actually to pull the debate away from you/me us/them left/right stuff that got me so riled last night. I'm suggesting that when you hear it, you might want to challenge it as well. Trying to look at the broader picture, regardless of who is saying it.

“If you're prepared to claim credit for predicting correctly that bloodshed would come, the evidence I presume you'd point to would be that "mocking" the Christians was a sign. Does logic not also suggest that mocking of any group for their beliefs or because they're different will ultimately have similar consequences? That is what must be addressed. It doesn't matter who draws first blood, someone has to be the first to offer to turn their swords into plowshares.”

Yes, the logic is solid. Looking at this as an isolated incident, I wouldn't readily attribute this as a "sign," but on a broader view, it probably will be a data point on the trend line. Of course, that is gut feel. I really haven't had the time to read much of the story.

Truth is, I can't deny, on the broader scale you're at least partially right on the "data point" idea. This aberrant blip is clearly evidence of SOMETHING, including a failure of parents/schools/churches, whatever. What my email to you last night revealed to me in reflection is that if we're going to come to some agreements we have to agree first that there will not be ONE answer, but that we should look for multiple solutions to address the symptoms of what I am convinced is more than one disease. It is simply not as easy as saying "moral decline" of the nation attributable to, for example, trends of the Supreme Court in the sixties. People are prone to look for easy answers. There are too many other contributing factors that we need to take into consideration before jumping to any hasty conclusions, left or right.

OK, I'll listen. Now, I've made no pre-judgments about Missler. I hadn't listened to his other stuff yet because that's been on the religion side of our discussion and I had other reading to do in that area before we could talk. But a Christian talking to Christians about what they ought to be believing with respect to the Jews is something I think I could get into. Because on that subject I already have somewhat of a frame of reference, so hearing it from an intelligent articulate "non agenda" fellow like Missler, I would give it the credit it's due.

You should be aware that he is a Christian teaching Christians, so you will hear references like to "the Messiah" that is typical for Christian teaching. Being an intellectual and comfortable in your belief, you can take those parts in proper perspective.

No problem. He's teaching Christians, not proselytizing to Jews.

Yep, a softer approach should have been taken in the first place, but it is important to a Christian (in a way you may not be able to appreciate) to agree that it is "JUST a historical and literary representation." Doing that would be, in effect, of denying your belief. It makes perfect sense to most Christians. The point is to try to understand that one has to deal with folks who don't necessarily share your beliefs, and to make it as palatable and non offensive or non-controversial for them as possible.

This ain't easy stuff, but we knew that going in. Take care. -R

C

Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 15:15:28 0600
From: Frank Grose
To: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Today's updates.

It also says he is reported to have "mocked" the prayer groups in the past. Not to be facetious, but that's just another example of "kids will be kids," eh? And unlike what happened in Pike County, it is doubtful that in Kentucky, the school administrators fostered an atmosphere where taunting of Christians by atheists was tolerated.

We've been around the "Pike County" pole a number of times already. Serious question here: Did the school administrators, in fact, actively encourage, allow, or condone the practice of those kid who were doing the harassing? Were they just passive and "looked the other way?" Without attempting to defend them at all, I just want to examine your assertions here. I have a hard time rationalizing a situation where a teacher or principal would not try to put a stop to harassment in general, much less for one's religious beliefs. If they really did actively condone or passively allow it to continue, I am firmly in your camp.

Don't you think that whoever is doing the mocking, whether atheists of Christians in Kentucky or Christians of Jews in Pike County, "kids will be kids" is simply not an answer? That it is something that needs to be addressed?

If you're prepared to claim credit for predicting correctly that bloodshed would come, the evidence I presume you'd point to would be that "mocking" the Christians was a sign. Does logic not also suggest that mocking of any group for their beliefs or because they're different will ultimately have similar consequences? That is what must be addressed. It doesn't matter who draws first blood, someone has to be the first to offer to turn their swords into plowshares.

FWIW, don't know if you've been following what's happening in Bon Secour, with the school stopping the nativity scene in the Christmas pageant out of fear of Judge DeMent's order, but I'm not convinced that legally they have to. The Lynch v. Donnelly decision I sent you is going to come into play here in the analysis, and I don't think the lawyers advising the school board are familiar with it. As you've seen, this is complicated jurisprudence here, and each case is pretty fact intensive.

I've got to confess, I usually scan the paper very quickly for topics of interest. When I use the term "paper," I use it rather loosely and am referring to the Courier. I haven't been aware of the situation in Bon Secour.

I can tell you that as a child I was quite uncomfortable singing Christmas Carols like "Silent Night." But they are such beautiful songs musically that while occasionally I would just mumble the words, for the most part, I sang along with the best of my voice. I can convince myself that it's OK, that it's pretty, "seasonal," music, that I don't have to believe in what I'm singing. Similarly, I could probably convince myself that the nativity scene in the school play is just a historical and literary device that demonstrates the origin of the holiday, as with the Pilgrims at Thanksgiving. Even still, as an aside to the aside, growing up in a community where the kids learned at home and in church that the Jews killed Jesus, did give me considerable pause about the idea of what message I was delivering by singing his praises.

Rob, I have a two cassette tape series by Chuck Missler called "The Prodigal Heirs." He really gets pretty deep into the history and status of the Jews and the nation of Israel. I'd like for you to listen to it for a number of reasons. The main reason is for you to hear for yourself how a real Christian feels and teaches other Christians to regard the Jews and Israel. As my horizons have been broadened under your patient (most of the time) tutelage, I belief these tapes would help you in your concept of what Christians believe (or should believe), specifically with regard to the Jews and the nation of Israel. At least you will understand the context of the proper Christian use of the phrase "chosen people." The second reason is for you to bring into better focus which "Christians" it was who was persecuting the Jews, and what specific incorrect theology leads to anti-Semitism (which is/has been very real, and a natural reaction to improper theology). After listening to these tapes, I better understand the context of the Jews' "fear" of Christians. Thirdly, this knowledge will better equip you to challenge other Christians in what they believe. Think of that, a non observant Jew teaching the Bible to a Christian! ; ) If you will listen to them, I'll copy them and send them to you. I want you to just listen to them first (without immediately labeling Chuck), then we can discuss points where he is wrong or don't go far enough on. Such a discussion is a must for our book. You should be aware that he is a Christian teaching Christians, so you will hear references like to "the Messiah" that is typical for Christian teaching. Being an intellectual and comfortable in your belief, you can take those parts in proper perspective.

Interestingly, in Bon Secour, no one has actually challenged the nativity scene, and I haven't heard what the "left's" take on it is. If it is challenged, Bon Secour will lose most likely, if only because the parents are absolutely adamant that the scene is there because it represents the birth of "the Lord" and it wouldn't be Christmas without it. If they softened their approach and said it was just a historical and literary representation of the origins of the holiday, it would stand a considerable better chance of surviving.

Yep, a softer approach should have been taken in the first place, but it is important to a Christian (in a way you may not be able to appreciate) to agree that it is "JUST a historical and literary representation." Doing that would be, in effect, of denying your belief. It makes perfect sense to most Christians. The point is to try to understand that one has to deal with folks who don't necessarily share your beliefs, and to make it as palatable and non-offensive or non-controversial for them as possible.

Regards,

Frank

XCIX

Date: Wed Dec 03 09:56:05 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Today's updates.

Today's paper says the kid in Kentucky is the son of an attorney. There but for the grace of God....

Even still, as an aside to the aside, growing up in a community where the kids learned at home and in church that the Jews killed Jesus, did give me considerable pause about the idea of what message I was delivering by singing his praises.

I've got to get some work done. Talk to you later. -R

XCVIII

Judge Moore wants quick prayer ruling
By ASHLEY ESTES
The Associated Press

MONTGOMERY — Circuit Judge Roy Moore has asked the state Supreme Court to solve what he says is growing confusion over matters of religion in public places by expediting a decision on his courtroom Ten Commandments display and prayers at the start of jury sessions.

In a motion filed Tuesday, Moore also criticized statements reportedly made by Supreme Court Justice Mark Kennedy about him in a speech earlier this year, including that Moore "probably wants to be the King of Siam one day, or be a U.S. senator."

Moore's motion asks the court to set a date for oral argument in the case and expedite a ruling. In the motion, he blames the state's puzzlement on public religion on a state court judge's ruling restricting courtroom religion and a federal court order limiting religious activities in DeKalb County schools.

"Such orders ... continue to have a chilling effect on the public acknowledgment of God in public places by both private citizens and public servants," the motion says.

Attorneys working with the American Civil Liberties Union have also asked the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments on the case.

Circuit Judge Charles Price of Montgomery ruled in November 1996 and February 1997 that Moore's practice of inviting local clergy to his Gadsden courtroom to lead prayers and his courtroom display of the Ten Commandments were unconstitutional.

The issue has since become a lightning rod for politicians, with Gov. Fob James declaring he would call out the National Guard to keep the commandments on Moore's wall.

Moore appealed in April. The court has delayed Price's orders pending the outcome of the appeal.

The motion Tuesday said quick action by the court would "remove the apparent temptation" of judges to remark on the case. The motion referred to remarks Moore said Kennedy made in August before the National Alliance of Children's Trust and Prevention Funds National Conference in Seattle.

Moore's motion said that Kennedy, while discussing the Ten Commandments, remarked, "A circuit judge in our state, who probably wants to be King of Siam or a United States senator, hung the Ten Commandments in his courtroom."

The motion claims Kennedy also talked about the crowd that attended a Save the Ten Commandments rally held in Montgomery. It quotes Kennedy as saying, "We need those same 10,000 people who gathered on the steps of the state Capitol to live the Ten Commandments."

Kennedy was out of town and unavailable for comment, according to his court aides.

Moore claims in his motion he was required to appear for examination before the inquiry commission in December 1996 because of complaints from the American Jewish Congress and others.

The Jewish organization called on the commission to investigate after Moore's reported remarks that his "duty under the Constitution is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God, not the gods of other faith. We are not a nation founded upon the Hindu god or Buddha."

Moore's motion, while critical of Kennedy's comments, did not specifically request that he remove himself from the Ten Commandments case or the Judicial inquiry.

The motion also claims that Price's ruling questions the constitutionality of the practice of "Red Mass" by some judges and other public servants, a 24-year tradition instituted by then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Howell Heflin.

The activities are held the same day the state Supreme Court begins its new terms, and include prayer and Bible readings, the motion said.

The Huntsville Times, Wednesday December 3, 1997

XCVII

Date: Tue Dec 02 20:42:14 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Here It Comes!

At 03:05 PM 12/2/97 0600, you wrote:

It is sad. Have you seriously examined WHY you expected the "first violence" (You expect it too, I see.) to come from the right? Careful of personal bias coloring your reasoning. ; )

Absolutely, I've thought about. Because they're a tad quick to jump to conclusions and claim martyrdom before the facts are in. ; )

I don't really have a position on that issue, and thanks for respecting my position. [Editor's Note: The authors are referring to the debate that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms.] Truth is, when I think about it, I have a hard time buying the "left's" arguments that it was written only to continue to authorize state national guards. It just doesn't read that restrictively to me, as many times as I've tried to get it to. (Repeat that and I'll deny it!) ; )

“Was he taunted or victimized in some way by the "prayer crowd" that killing was the only way of dealing with it?”

According to the NBC Nightly news tonight, this is the present theory among detectives. If true, it looks like one or more of MY speculations was closer to the truth. It wasn't the "prayer crowd" as much as the "football crowd," the kids in prayer were a convenient target. The kid was "different," wore funny hats, was the object of kids will be kids ridicule. That is not an excuse, and I do not suggest that anyone deserved it. But it's terribly important to understand it as a possible explanation for why he snapped, if that is in fact true. With that great equalizer, the bullet, every David can best their imaginary Goliaths. When we single people out because they are different, make them the object of scorn and ridicule, they will either fade into obscurity or, every so often, take their place in infamy.

I'm not saying excuse the kid, just understand what happened. He obviously had seriously impaired coping skills. Somebody failed to see the signs, if there were any. And it ain't no answer to say kids will be kids, because you've seen the result. While we're generalizing, I'm just amazed that you're so quick to find the fault and blame, and then just stop, rather than assume responsibility for finding ways to avoid that from happening in the future.

“Was it something as simple as a broken heart, a lost girlfriend who got ‘saved,’ and he blamed ‘them’ for losing his love? Was he making a political statement? Did he want to die too? What troubles at home? At school? Were the kids in prayer an intended target? Or just a convenient one?”

At the outset, I agree with the need to consider the questions you've raised. Absolutely!

Thanks. The police have already closed the case. He's confessed. The only question is whether he'll be tried as an adult. But I want to know why. Only then can we attempt to prevent it from happening again. Finding the root and cause, the fault and blame is only half the journey. The questions is, what are we gonna' do about it when we do find the cause?

Now let me hold up a mirror to you to peer into. Substitute "pro lifer" for "atheist" and "abortionist" for "praying student." Would you honestly be as ready with possible reasons/excuses? Response comments are not required. Selah. While I agree with your logic, it is just that kind of logic NEVER comes from the left when one of theirs has been victimized by someone from the right. I was just somewhat surprised when it came from you, when the "right-wing Christian whackos" are guilty before the fact in (what seems to be) your frame of reference.

If you agree with my logic, why not leave it at that? I told you up front I wasn't making excuses, I was looking for explanations. I did not jump to conclusions that it was religiously motivated just because the victims were praying.

Honest answer why that "logic" never comes from the left when one of their own is victimized? Because in the example you gave, the "pro lifers" are the ones who are already in the face of the "abortionists," they're the ones on a mission from God who have splashed blood on women going into clinics, who get up in their faces as they exercise their right to free speech. It goes way past harassment in many of the cases. The closest analogy I can think of on the left are the animal rights activists or the Greenpeace people. They're just as rabid as the "pro lifers" when it comes to their politics. Harassment is harassment, trespass is trespass, assault is assault. On THIS political issue of religion when you line up the people already prone to violence, and if we're going to make political generalities, they're going to be on the "right."

Abortion is your example, it's a good one. The Greenpeace and animal rights activists example is mine, it's no different. Extremists are extremists. When I say I admit I expected the first volley to come from the "right" I'm talking about extremists, not about you. Holding the mirror up to me isn't clever unless your analogies are apt.

Why he did it is not an overriding point, important, but not overriding. A characteristic of the left is trying to somehow justify the action because of the criminal's environment, relationships, upbringing, economic status, race, etc., etc. Example: Menendez brothers who blew away their parents.

That's just garbage. Don't hold the mirror up to me when I'm counseling restraint and then blast off and make generalities about the left justifying the acts of a sick individual. The Menendez weren't sick, they were cold and calculating. Their defense lawyer's "victim" defense didn't work in either trial. The "left" wasn't rallying behind them to justify patricide or anything remotely like it. I cautioned against making a political issue out of this until we knew the facts, and you're making generalizations about the left like there's no tomorrow.

Consider the boy's parents for a second. Do you think they had a clue this was going to happen? I promise you they didn't. And you don't want to jump to the conclusion that they were neglectful parents. They were probably hard working god fearing folk who raised their son the best they knew how. If not, you'd have seen them on TV by now. They didn't have guns in their house. He had to steal them from a neighbor. The kid had religious friends judging by the boy named "Strong" who's emerged as the local hero and peacemaker, who called himself a friend. I've known kids who've done things like that. I've had their parents in my home. Good god fearing law abiding hard working people who tried their damnedest to raise their kids as Christians. And still the kids do heinous, atrocious things that you and I wouldn't have dreamed of in our youth. And I'm not talking about sex and drugs, I'm talking about murder, cold blooded murder, gangland killing style, just like that kid in Kentucky.

Why he did it "is not an overriding point, important, but not overriding"? Seriously, what is the meaning of that statement? Other than a nice segue into generalizations about the left that have less and less relevance as the facts emerge in this case? What other question is left, but "why"? "[E]nvironment, relationships, upbringing, economic status, race, etc., etc." as you say, are only the surface issues. Even if Bible readings and school sponsored prayers were legal, they're not gonna' reach kids like that, that are so alienated and divorced from the sanity you and I take for granted as to commit such vicious and unconscionable acts. How are we gonna' know which ones to lock away? Especially since, I'll betch'a right now, he came from pretty ordinary folks and family. He probably fit the ordinary profile of 75% of all "disaffected youth" today, most of whom all grow up to lead very productive lives, like me.

From the initial information "martyr" may be the applicable term.

When you wrote this, you may not have had the benefit of watching the news first, so perhaps I should let it go. I've made the point that we should wait until more facts are in, you've agreed with the logic. If you're going to turn all our hard work back into a left vs. right, Christian vs. atheist issue because it's the easy way to explain such aberrant behavior, I gotta' wonder, what's the point?

Yes, there is potential for repercussions from the right, but I hope not. Actually, I don't expect it.

Well, I fully expect it, if "the right" is going to draw conclusions about the politics of a situation, and decline to investigate the underlying facts.

I do believe there will be other incidents in the future with a common thread. It is a natural outgrowth of the direction our courts and our country are going. Do I want to see "holy war?" Absolutely not! But as a Christian, I fully expect further restriction of my religious liberties, more open rejection and vilification by the public sector (We already have it in the entertainment and news media.), and eventually open persecution. Personally, I feel that my chances of dying at the hands of a government goon while defending my rights to be high enough to give me real concern.

Sigh. Rob shaking head and wondering who he's been talking to these past many weeks....

Frank, wouldn't it be a better world if the left and the right looked for things they had in common, rather than look for ways to blame one another for things they'll never have or come to fully understand? Is it really so earth shattering that you might be more in agreement with "the other side's" view of what kind of world they want to live in than you've been led to believe in the past? Repeatedly I've shown you that you have more in common with "the left" than you believed before we met. Will the world stop spinning if you accept that?

Come Let Us Reason Together

CVIII

CVII

CVI

CV

CIV

CIII

CII

CI

C

XCIX

XCVIII

XCVII

Subscribe Via Email

Blog Archive

United States Supreme Court Decisions

Rob's Links

Frank's Links

A Comment on Comments

About the Author