I fought the law, but the law won

Embattled school board under fire again after leader’s divisive rant

Several parents in the district filed a lawsuit in November through the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The board decided to fight the lawsuit, maintaining that members have the right to pray and enlisting a conservative values law firm to combat what they called secular bullying.

That case is ongoing and in discovery. Andrew Seidel, the lawyer for Freedom From Religion, said there won’t be a jury trial and his group will be pushing for a judge to grant summary judgment.

On the prayer issue, hundreds of community members signed a petition supporting school board prayer and showed up at board meetings in a show of support for Cruz and Na. But this time, Cruz’s rant has alienated some of his supporters, too.

• FFRF sues over school board prayer in Chino Valley, Calif.
• Andrew Cruz recall, Chino Valley Unified School District, California (2015)

Denver cites religion to delay Chick-fil-A contract

The Denver City Council delayed the routine approval of a contract for Chick-fil-A to operate one of its restaurants at the city’s airport after a “gay” council member charged corporate profits would be used “to fund and fuel discrimination.”

The attack on one of the most successful and most popular food franchises in the nation is just the latest since 2012, when CEO Dan Cathy expressed his view that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

At one point, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel threatened to refuse to allow the company to open any restaurants in Chicago. He later dispatched an aide to say he really wouldn’t do that.

Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver at the time said such a move would be unconstitutional anyway. But he said the reaction to Cathy’s support of the historic definition of marriage proved homosexual activists are militantly intolerant and want to intimidate and silence critics rather than engage in debate.

The Denver Post reported that the routine contract with Chick-fil-A was pending before the council when Councilman Paul Lopez called it “really, truly a moral issue on the city.”

The company repeatedly has assured the government it follows nondiscrimination laws and regulations.

• Contract for Chick-fil-A at DIA gets Denver council subcommittee's OK

Group is gunning for small town's veteran memorial cross

Mayor Hatch told me the council will meet next month to decide what course of action to take. Meanwhile, the citizens of Knoxville are launching a campaign to save the memorial.

“This political correctness stuff is getting way out of hand,” resident Doug Goff told me. “When we are bending to the will of one person in the town -- you know something is wrong there.”

Goff is a lifelong resident of Knoxville. He’s also a Navy veteran. And he’s helping to spearhead an August 30^t rally to defend the cross.

“This is a memorial for our veterans,” he said -- wondering if Americans United has a problem with the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery.

“The cross is white because the headstones in Arlington are white,” he said. “Would you take that cross down, too?”
,,,
Meanwhile, I think Americans United should answer Mr. Goff’s question. Will they demand that Arlington Cemetery remove their crosses?

I don't see any crosses, do you?

 

 https://romneymanassa.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/arlington-national-cemetery-ii.jpg?w=624

What is at Arlington,,,

• Cross with veterans memorial prompts complaint in Iowa
• Cross Punch: Activists Wrong To Cite Arlington National Cemetery In Their Fight To Save A Sectarian War Memorial In Iowa

Prayer at Florence High School flag pole continues after lawsuit

Less than a month after Fremont County School District RE-2 settled a lawsuit with a former teacher over religious discrimination at Florence High School, students and church leaders were back in front of the school Friday morning for prayers at the flag pole.
,,,
Community members, along with the pastor of The Cowboy Church at Crossroads, were also there.
"It's short, 20, 30 seconds and then they go in and then we wait for another group to come," said pastor Randy Pfaff.
,,,
The lawsuit was settled in July, and part of the provisions ban the school district from endorsing or sponsoring religious groups or activities, and the Cowboy Church can no longer hold worship services at district facilities.
According to the settlement, students can still gather to pray and form religious organizations, but they must be student led. Now the group, Fellowship of Christian Huskies, will have to make that transition.

"The students of course still have a club going but everything they try to do has been diminished and they don't have a leader any more to really lead in that way and Christianity does not need to be out of our schools," said Candy Thompson, one of Pfaff's supporters in the community.

• Colorado Teacher Sues His District Over Constant, Administration-Supported Promotion of Christianity
• Lawsuit claims church, state not separate at high school

Federal Judge: Ten Commandments Monument Violates U.S. Constitution « CBS Pittsburgh

According to Hemant Mehta, "This controversy began in 2012, with those first letters to the District. The student whose family lodged that complaint has since graduated from the school and they have no connection to it anymore. Taking the monument down, in that case, won’t make any different since the student’s not even around to appreciate it."

A federal judge on Friday ruled that a monument of the Ten Commandments outside the Connellsville Area Junior High School in Fayette County violates the U.S. Constitution.

However, at the same time, the judge did not order the monolith removed.

Now, both opponents and supporters of the monument are claiming at least partial victories.

The four-and-a-half-foot monument has been on school property for more than 50 years, and most recently, it’s been tightly sealed to prevent people from removing plywood and other coverings.

The judge said the monument can stay where it is because the student who objected to it, and challenged it in court, has moved on and no longer attends the school.

From the FFRF:

McVerry's decision recites the chronology of the placement, which involved the mayor rhapsodizing that "there can be no better guidance for youth than God's laws," and notes it was one of the Ten Commandments markers donated as a campaign by the Eagles with filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille, director of "The Ten Commandments."

The decision recites the community uproar over the request to remove the biblical edicts from public school grounds, including a prayer rally and public gathering at the monument, with sprinkles of "amen" from the crowd. At a public meeting the complainants were referred to as "yellow-belly bums" for being pseudonymous, and speakers cited the need to "stand up for the Bible" and Christianity.

"The monument still stands alone outside the school, declaring to all who pass it, 'I AM the LORD thy God.' There is no context plausibly suggesting that this plainly religious message has any broader, secular meaning," wrote McVerry.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, McVerry added: "Whether the key word is 'endorsement,' 'favoritism,' or 'promotion,' the essential principle remains the same. The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from 'making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community.' "

Federal Judge: Ten Commandments Monument Violates U.S. Constitution « CBS Pittsburgh

New White House Rules Would Prevent Religious Charities from Preaching with Taxpayer Money

If you haven't figured it out I really do like Hemant Mehta's "reporting".  Some how, he and his crew over at Friendly Atheist are able to keep up will current events and issues much better than I.  They break the issues down nicely and explain how things effect those of us in the secular community and why things are good, bad or indifferent.

The following is another example of an issue that I can't add anything of value to, other than to share:

One of the problems with President Obama‘s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is that it helps the government give money to religious groups that do charity work (1) even if they proselytize along the way and (2) even if they discriminate against LGBT people in their hiring.

The latter issue is still a source of controversy, but there may finally be a fix for the former.

Last week, director Melissa Rogers (below) announced a proposed rule change affecting nine different federal agencies (out of the 14 that partner with her office). The new rule would prevent grant-receiving groups from preaching while using taxpayer funds:

The proposed rules clarify the principle that organizations offering explicitly religious activities may not subsidize those activities with direct federal financial assistance and must separate such activities in time or location from programs supported with direct federal financial assistance. For example, if a faith-based provider offers a Bible study as well as a federally supported job training program, the Bible study must be privately funded and separated in time or location from the job training program.

If you want to get more specific about it, the grant rules used to prevent “inherently religious activities” (a vague phrase), but the new rules would prevent “explicitly religious activities.”

The rules would also make clear to all groups that they cannot discriminate against beneficiaries on the basis of their faith, meaning that job training program could not have a “Christian-only” requirement.

New White House Rules Would Prevent Religious Charities from Preaching with Taxpayer Money

UPDATE::Anonymous donor gives $30K to gospel concert

The organizer of a Brownsville gospel concert did not accept a $30,000 sponsorship from Escambia County after a national organization claimed the award was in violation of Florida’s Constitution which bars public money for religious activities.

Last week, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State threatened a lawsuit, calling on the Escambia County Commission to reverse the June 25 vote that awarded tourism tax dollars to Sheila Green for putting on the Brownsville All-Star Concert, which took place at Friday at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church.

In response, county attorney Alison Rogers wrote that the commission “is vested with the sole authority to make a legislative determination whether a particular project or event is tourist related and furthers the purpose of promoting tourism.”

In an effort to avoid controversy, Green decided to not accept the county’s money and to take out a loan to cover the cost.

Anonymous donor gives $30K to gospel concert

Questions arise over gospel concert funding

As noted by Hemant Mehta, "The debate isn’t whether they’re allowed to spend money to promote tourism — they are — but whether they should be using government funds to promote Christianity, which is really what this is all about."

Questions are being raised about the legality of a decision by the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners to award thousands in tourism tax dollars to sponsor a gospel concert.

Commissioners voted June 25 to award $30,000 to sponsor the second annual Brownsville All-Star Concert, scheduled for Aug. 7 at Friendship Missionary Baptist Church, where the pastor is the brother of one of the county commissioners.

Now, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is calling on county administrator Jack Brown to recoup that money arguing, “the grant of taxpayer dollars to a religious group for the express purpose of putting on a religious program is in direct violation of the plain language of the Florida Constitution.”

The state constitution explicitly prohibits public funds from aiding “directly or indirectly” any “church, sect or religious denomination.”

 Questions arise over gospel concert funding

Student trip to Glendive creationist museum canceled over legal concerns

Glendive third-graders will no longer visit their town's creationist museum amid concerns that the annual school trip to learn about dinosaurs violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

School district administrators had authorized this year's field trip to the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum but reversed course last week after receiving a letter from a Washington, D.C., advocacy group calling the school-sponsored event illegal. Their decision dashed the hopes of many of the children, some parents said.

The Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum is the second-largest dinosaur museum in Montana and the only to assert a literal, biblical view of world history in which humans and dinosaurs are said to have coexisted. Alongside full animal skeletons, its exhibit halls include a biblical history room, a reconstruction of Noah's Ark and dioramas showing humans together with dinosaurs.

One hundred or so third-grade students in the Glendive School District were invited to the field trip, originally to be held Thursday during school hours. Parents were required to sign permission slips and pay the museum entrance fee in order for their children to attend.

Student trip to Glendive creationist museum canceled over legal concerns

See also:

Please Think Of The Children: Mont. Public School Had No Business Sending Kids To Creationist Attraction

Youngsters' dino museum trip dashed by atheists

UPDATE::Georgia town to take down Christian flag after it spurs... | www.myajc.com

A month after a North Georgia county sparked criticism by raising the Confederate battle flag over its courthouse, another flag controversy has engulfed a small Middle Georgia town.
Only this time, it has nothing to do with the Civil War.

A traditional Christian flag flying over Cochran will come down Friday after city officials bowed last week to threats of legal action and concerns over its impact on the city’s “fiscal resources.”
,,,
While city officials have said local residents supported the decision, national groups including the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State said they have received several complaints over the matter. The group recently sent letters to both the city and Bleckley County — which has flown the flag in the past — declaring that flying the Christian flag on public property violates the First Amendment.

Georgia town to take down Christian flag after it spurs... | www.myajc.com

Hate Peddlers | Americans United

Americans United enjoyed a dubious distinction late in February: Within the space of a week, the organization was singled out for attack by two Religious Right groups.

First out of the gate was the Liberty Institute, a Religious Right legal group based in Texas. The Institute published an article titled “5 Dangerous Enemies Against Your Christian Faith” on the website Charisma News. Americans United was among the five.

In a brief synopsis, Liberty Institute noted that Americans United was founded in 1947. Just about everything else it reported after that was a lie, a half-truth or an inflammatory distortion.

According to the Liberty Institute, AU has “worked to ban ‘God’ from graduation speeches, shut down the activity of prison ministries, outlaw school vouchers allowing parents to send children to religious schools, and tear down veterans memorials.”

Added the Liberty Institute, “They also constantly lobby Con­gress and threaten religious activity in local communities.”

The charges were a distortion of AU’s work that failed to tell the whole story,,,

[,,,]
Four days after that list was issued, another Religious Right group lashed out at Americans United. The American Family Association, a stridently fundamentalist outfit based in Tupelo, Miss., released a “Bigotry Map” listing “anti-Christian” groups in America.

The map, obviously based on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s map of American hate groups, broke down the groups into four categories: “Homosexual Agenda,” “Anti-Christian,” “Atheist” and “Humanist.”

Americans United was listed under the “Anti-Christian” category. These organizations, they AFA asserted, actively engage “in the complete eradication of the Christian faith from society, government and private com­merce. These groups file lawsuits and use intimidation to silence any reference to Christianity from the public square.”

Hate Peddlers | Americans United

Report Debunks Right-Wing Claims of Military Persecution of Christians | Advocate.com

Firing back at the anti-LGBT Family Research Council, the organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State has compiled a report to debunk claims about religious persecution in the military.

“The AU report,  ‘Clear and Present Falsehoods: The Real State of Religious Freedom in the Military,’ responds to an earlier report by the Family Research Council (FRC) that purported to list widespread instances of religious liberty violations in the armed forces,” reads an Americans United press release. “In fact, AU says, the FRC report (titled 'A Clear and Present Danger: The Threat to Religious Liberty in the Military') is merely a list of overblown and inaccurate claims that often don’t provide context or the whole story.

“Many examples of religious liberty 'violations' listed in the FRC report were in reality efforts by military officials to enforce separation of church and state or were ambiguous policies that were quickly fixed. A final category included examples of private individuals being critical of military policy.”

Not every one of the Family Research Council’s 61 claims, each followed in the report by Americans United analysis and response, is related to LGBT people. However, several do reference same-sex marriage and other LGBT issues. Here's an overview of the LGBT-specific items, along with the Americans United's (paraphrased) findings:

Report Debunks Right-Wing Claims of Military Persecution of Christians | Advocate.com

Okla. school district rejects Hobby Lobby bible class - Freedom From Religion Foundation

My initial post concerning this debacle is http://interestinghmm.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-good-book-taught-badly-okla-school.html here,,,

Mustang Public Schools is canceling plans to conduct a bible course developed by Hobby Lobby President Steve Green, a zealous evangelical Christian advocate.

The district's announcement came in response to a follow-up open records request to the Oklahoma school district from FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel, in conjunction with Americans United Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Lipper, ACLU of Oklahoma Legal Director Brady Henderson and Daniel Mach of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
,,,
"In summary, the topic of a Bible course in the Mustang School District is no longer a discussion item nor is there a plan to provide such a course in the foreseeable future," wrote Superintendent Sean McDaniel in his emailed response.

FFRF led the charge against the proposed class in April when the Mustang school board voted to approve Green's curriculum. FFRF pointed out numerous flaws with the course, entitled "The Book, the Bible's History, Narrative and Impact of the World's Best-selling Book." The course in the Mustang school district was to be the first in what Green intended to be implemented in school districts around the country. Americans United and ACLU later also wrote letters, and teamed up with FFRF for the most recent open records request.

McDaniel said two "non-negotiables" the school had requested from Hobby Lobby were not met, namely that the district be permitted to review the final curriculum before introducing it, and that Hobby Lobby commit to providing legal coverage to the district.

FFRF's concern from the beginning was that Green and his staff were using the Mustang School District for their own ends, persuading it to adopt an unconstitutional curriculum for which the Mustang taxpayers, not Green, would ultimately pay the court costs for the inevitable court battle.

Okla. school district rejects Hobby Lobby bible class - Freedom From Religion Foundation

UPDATE::Americans United Warns Alabama City Not To Discriminate Against Religious Minorities At Local Board Meetings | Americans United

The City of Huntsville, Ala., discriminated against a Wiccan priest when it rescinded his invitation to deliver a prayer before a city council meeting, Americans United for Separation of Church and State says.

Blake Kirk had been scheduled to deliver an official invocation before the Huntsville City Council’s June 26 meeting, but his invitation was suddenly withdrawn just days before he was to speak. News reports said Kirk was uninvited due to community concerns about a Wiccan praying at the meeting.

“When the City of Huntsville denied a Wiccan the right to pray before an official meeting, it took a stand against certain religious viewpoints,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “That decision was plainly unconstitutional.”

AU sent a letter to city officials today, explaining that the U.S. Constitution does not permit local governing boards to bar anyone from giving a pre-meeting prayer on the basis of religion. Nor may anyone be barred from speaking because of the prejudices of the members of that community.

Americans United Warns Alabama City Not To Discriminate Against Religious Minorities At Local Board Meetings | Americans United

Americans United Says ‘Religious Liberty’ Does Not Justify Performing Harmful ‘Reparative’ Therapy On Minors | Americans United

The doctrine of religious freedom does not give licensed therapists the right to perform damaging “reparative” therapy on minors, Americans United for Separation of Church and State says.

In a friend-of-the-court brief submitted today in King v. Christie, Americans United told the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the state of New Jersey has a duty to protect children from harmful health care, even if that care is given in the name of religion.

“There is clear evidence that so-called ‘reparative’ therapy has no scientific basis,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Religion should never be an excuse to force something damaging on anyone, especially children.”

[,,,]
“The law draws a clear distinction between science and religion,” reads the brief. “Religion lays no more claim to the practice of medicine than it does to natural science.…”

Americans United Says ‘Religious Liberty’ Does Not Justify Performing Harmful ‘Reparative’ Therapy On Minors | Americans United

Group wants Kansas elementary school to remove cross from top of building | Fox News

Hmm,,, this will be an interesting case if it gets to that point. The "cross" was a structural element of the building PRIOR to it becoming a public school.

Ian Smith, an attorney for the group, told the newspaper that while the Supreme Court has upheld certain religious displays at certain government buildings, cases involving elementary schools are different because of the compulsory nature of schooling.

"Students don't have a choice to be there. Something that might be OK elsewhere is not necessarily going to be OK in a public school," Smith told the Globe. "The public schools have traditionally been treated different than other places."

If the school district does not comply with the group's request to remove the cross, Smith said the group will continue investigating and exploring legal options.

According to the Globe, Spearville Elementary was a Catholic school until it was transferred from the Dodge City Diocese to the local district in 1975. The school was built in 1925 and may be eligible for designation as a historical building, the report said.

Jeffrey Jackson, a professor of law at Washburn University in Topeka, said if a case reaches the courts, the cross could be viewed as a historical element of the building, rather than an endorsement of a particular religion.

Group wants Kansas elementary school to remove cross from top of building | Fox News

Georgia School Board Petitioned to Protect Religious Rights of Teachers | Christian News Network

A group of residents in Bulloch County, Georgia is petitioning their local school board to protect the religious rights of its teachers.

Bulloch County Citizens for Religious Liberties, led by Pastor Jon Cook, recently requested that the county Board of Education review its religious expression guidelines after emails were distributed throughout the county instructing teachers to cleanse their classroom of Christianity.

“As of today, if you have a Bible verse on your school email and/or Bible verse posted in the classroom, please remove it immediately,” a message received by Cook’s wife, Jill, a teacher at Sallie Zetterower Elementary School, read. “If a student-led prayer is initiated, you must remove yourself and step away from the group.”

Georgia School Board Petitioned to Protect Religious Rights of Teachers | Christian News Network
__________

So the Saga begins!!

Please note:  I am not responding to the actions of the Bulloch County School District.  What I am responding to is the article and the comments left on the article highlighted here.  The School District has (had) been taking a pro-active stance in this debacle, created by Bulloch County Citizens for Religious Liberties led by Pastor Jon Cook.

What I have found a bit disconcerting is the author's combining of 2 independent incidents into one tirade:

1] A complaint forwarded by Americans United concerning prayer on school grounds and participation by school employees.  What the article does not point out, the complaint filed by AU was from April (2013).  In veiled and inculpative language, the author insinuates the following:

A complaint received by Americans United for Separation of Church and State reportedly sparked the memo, as the group contacted the district earlier this year to take issue with school prayer, including alleged teacher participation.

2]  The district wide e-mail, referenced above, sent to educators concerning religious expression in classrooms.

And you may as well add the faux Christmas card "headache" created by Todd Starnes of Fox News as he also threw in his biased opinion concerning the district e-mail.  The problem with Starnes report concerning the cards, there were no cards posted at the time and there was a privacy issue as well; not a religious one as implied: 

When boys and girls returned from Thanksgiving break, they discovered that their teachers’ Christmas cards had been removed – under orders from the Georgia school’s administration.

Robb Kicklighter’s wife is a third grade teacher at the school. He said many teachers are disgruntled by the school’s decision to confiscate the Christmas cards.

“They took down the cards so the kids can’t see them,” he told me. “Some of the cards had the word ‘Christmas’ and some had Nativity scenes.”

The School District has been clear in their actions and communications with AU as well as the teachers and to this amateur's eyes, it looks as if it is headed to a proper conclusion.

As you know, the Board of Education and I continue to give our full attention to the question of how each of us is able to express our beliefs in our official duties,,,

[,,,]
Initially, I can tell you the following: (1) you do not have to step away or turn your back on student-led prayer. Simply be mindful of your position so as not to appear that you are leading it; (2) you are free to pray to yourself at school and even gather with your peers of like faith to pray when students are not present; (3) you may wear non-obtrusive religious jewelry; and (4) our students are free to learn about different faiths, cultures and holiday traditions in the context of the lessons our teachers prepare. However, because we have been given the responsibility to educate children and with that task comes inherent authority, we do have to limit religious symbols, scripture and phrases on email signatures and in our work spaces unless they are be ing used to teach a cultural lesson or advance some educational purpose. We must always respect student expression of religious views, but we must be neutral with regard to our individual expressions in the presence of students.

What is blatantly obvious, the District's Administrators do not appear to be appreciative of the involvement of the Liberty Institute and one Jeremiah Dys.

As legal counsel for the Bulloch County Board of Education, I have been asked to respond to your letter dated December 5, 2013, contending that the Board of Education is infringing upon the religious rights of its teachers.

At the outset, let me state that is has never been the intent, much less the desire of the Board and its employees to discriminate in any fashion against any employee's exercise of his or her religious beliefs.  That being said, as an Institute with "significant experience regarding First Amendment issues in public schools," you must be aware that such rights are not limitless.

That aside, on to these uneducated comments,,,

"It's fascism [sic] plain and simple,,,"

In order for it to be "fascism" one would have to involve government. Simply defined it is a political ideology with rigidly enforced conservative values and behavior norms. Maybe the word you are looking for is oppressive, intolerant, or dictatorial. But I believe the word this commenter is looking for is "bully." To borrow from George Orwell and his 1944 essay "What is Fascism?"

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

No one is being bullied here. No one is infringing upon the private religious rights of the teachers. What is being addressed is the perceived support or enhancement of one religion over another as a teacher's "religious speech" may be taken as representing the school/school district (eg. Bishop v. Aronov, 1991).

 "All this happened because an outsider group reared its ugly head,,," 

The only "outsider group" attempting to get involved is Liberty Counsel who sent an unsolicited e-mail to the Superintendent, Charles Wilson, "I write on behalf of concerned citizens to outline the constitutional requirements regarding these issues,,,"  My assumption the "concerned citizens" is Pastor Jon Cook's group Bulloch County Citizens for Religious Liberties

What is sickening concerning Liberty Counsel initial e-mail, the reliance on the erroneous Todd Starnes report as source.   Like Starnes, Liberty Counsel acted upon incorrect information without doing their due diligence.  This should come as no surprise as both Mat Staver (Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel) and Matt Barber (Chairman of  Liberty Counsel Action, an arm of Liberty Counsel) have been frequent guests on Fox News.

I understand the following facts to be true. Citizens of Bulloch County have contacted Liberty Counsel, directing our attention to an article stating that Christmas cards were removed by the District so students wouldn't see them [1],,,

(footnote)
[1]  http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2013/12/03/georgia-school-confiscates-christmas-cards-n1756579

[T]eachers do not leave their rights at the door when they come to work every day,,,

I am going to assume the above comment is referencing Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) mentioned by Attorney Jeremy Dys of Liberty Council [sic] in their demand letter to the Board of Education:

It is a foundational principle of American jurisprudence that teacher speech is protected by the First Amendment. See Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) (“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.”) ,,,

In my opinion, what Dys fails to address in regards to Tinker, this ruling is concerned with the First Amendment rights of student NOT teachers.  It also does not address religious expression.  (I only highlight this case due to the fact that Dys takes the ruling so far out of context):        

a]  All throughout the Tinker opinion, it was student led expression of opinion that was addressed not teacher
b]  ",,,[T]he Court has repeatedly emphasized the need for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in schools."
c]  In Tinker, the students were engaging in "a silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. There is here no evidence whatever of petitioners' interference, actual or nascent, with the schools' work or of collision with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone. Accordingly, this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students.
d]  "In order for the State in the person of school officials to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." 

That something in this current incident, is the appearance of endorsing one particular religious belief over another.

Ponder me this my dear readers, Mr. Aplesayed has a poster in his room proclaiming, "Allah is the one true God."  Or Miss Wicawich, has a book on her desk entitled "Angelic Zodiac Sigils" and signs her emails "Be one with nature, let Gaia enjoin with you on your path."  How well do you think that would be embraced by these same petitioners?  Would Mr. Dys and the Liberty Counsel be clamoring to be involved?  I doubt it as it doesn't advance their agenda.  You can't have it both ways!

There are many other cases that support the actions of the Board of Education; too many to list.  But one case in particular is listed prominently in the Board's Resources section entitled "Case Law Talking Points (PDF)":

Although a teacher does not give up all of his or her rights to free exercise of religion as a condition of employment, Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the rights of teachers in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings. (eg. Roberts v. Madigan, 1990)

In Roberts v. Madigan it was ruled that a fifth-grade teacher was required to remove certain texts from his classroom library and to refrain from silently reading the Bible during an in-class reading time.  Teachers in the eyes of a student(s) are "clothed with the mantle of one who imparts knowledge and wisdom" (referring to Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 1994); they are not ordinary citizens.  Any type of religious endorsement during school time or on school grounds, can be seen as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

So in essence, teachers do leave their rights "at the door" just not all of them.

The teachers will win. They are protected under the constitution,,,

Similar sentiment as above but citing the Constitution also brings one caveat.  As contracted employees of the school district they are bound by the dictates put forth by their employers who are bound by the Constitution.  Justice Brennan, writing the opinion of the SCOTUS in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 582-83 (1987):

In this case, the Court must determine whether the Establishment Clause was violated in the special context of the public elementary and secondary school system. States and local school boards are generally afforded considerable discretion in operating public schools.

[Citing as precedence, Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U. S. 853, 457 U. S. 864 (1982) Brennan continues:]

'At the same time . . . we have necessarily recognized that the discretion of the States and
local school boards in matters of education must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment.'

The Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools. Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family.

So the BOE was correct when stating:

,,,with regards to all electronic communications between an employee and a student or parent, the employee is representing the District in his or her professional capacity. Given the District ownership of the e-mail account and the policies of the District, it would be difficult to assert that e-mails from employees with religious messages do not constitute an endorsement of religion or at least entangle the District in the subject.

The Constitution wins!

You are seriously confused on what the law of the land is. Have you ever read the first amendment?

Schools teachers and administrators are by proxy government employees.  They are therefore not only protected by the 1st Amendment, they are also bound by.  The rights of a minority (non-Christian believers) cannot be impinged upon by the  rights of a majority.  In others words "mob rule" does not fit.  Just because the "community" believes it has the right to violate the Constitution does not make it the "law of the land."

In the end, Christmas was not cancelled at Brooklet Elementary School or any Bulloch County school.  Just as always, the school followed the protocols set forth in the Constitution and subsequent legal opinions.  Not that anyone  felt the need to report on that aspect of the story.

“Brooklet Elementary School’s (BES) holiday traditions and especially those of Christmas are alive and well,” said BES Principal Marlin Baker. Bulloch County Schools and BES’s administrators have not, nor do they plan to remove any student’s learning experiences about Christmas or any other seasonal holiday. Students across the district returned Monday from Thanksgiving break, and already student’s holiday artwork is going up on bulletin boards, walls and doorways.

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 5)

Q::Could it be argued that Hobby Lobby is asking for the freedom to impose it's own religious agenda over that of it's employees?

Lynn seemed a bit hesitant and unclear in his answer but talks of how it is the "the guy who runs the company" whose "religious views are being foisted on ALL of his employees."  Lynn demonstrates this point by pointing out that if one were to take a "poll of their employees, like the rest of the public, 9 of 10 women will have used contraception."  [This next statement a bit unclear and I'm not sure what Lynn is inferring.  Is he referring to actual printed company policy or some type of board of directorship?]  "I wouldn't say that companies have any of these positions themselves, but in this case the president of the company does.  The president of the company is the one who rules in these employee policies IF the SCOTUS buys this bogus argument."

Q::The RFRA says that the exception is when there is a legitimate State interest.  If the anti-Hobby Lobby side is going to prevail, what State interest are they going to articulate in terms of what they are defending?

Lynn characterizes the HL position as such, "They are going to say there is no legitimate State interest here because insurance coverage for contraception is not that big of deal.  You can go out and buy a box of condoms and it only costs a few dollars." [Pondering, will Viagra be cover under the ACA? If so, are they fighting against that?]

"The administration, and those of us that support it with 'friends of the court briefs,' will argue that there is a legitimate State interest in creating a healthcare system that works; and that it works for men and women, the rich and poor.  This is an effort to have a comprehensive system of healthcare in America; at least the beginnings of a comprehensive system.  That's the argument we will use and I think it is a very good one."

Lynn talks of the similarities of this case to the Amish in regards to Social Security law.

"The Amish, who have filed a number of very important lawsuits,,,have claimed that they should not only be exempt from Social Security themselves,,,but they have also said, we don't want to take social security out of our non-Amish employees who work for Amish companies.  The SCOTUS soundly rejected that idea over 20 years ago." [I believe Lynn may have misspoke here in regards to Amish employees as the case United States v. Lee (1982) dealt with an Amish employer, employing other Amish but failed to withhold social security taxes from his employees or to pay the employer's share of such taxes.  Unless there is another case I am not aware of.]

"It is very similar in some ways to the challenge HLs making and it's certainly going to be a case the HL side will need to distinguish itself from if it thinks it's going to get 5 votes, even with this conservative SCOTUS."

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 4)

Just to emphasize what Lynn brought up in regards to the RFRA and FOR PROFIT companies, Michael Meyerson in writing about Newland v. Sebilius makes the same point:

The Supreme Court has consistently held that religious organizations have the power to decide for themselves, free from governmental interference, matters of internal discipline and governance. Thus, the courts are barred from stepping in to settle a dispute over which of two religious factions is the rightful owner of particular church property. Judges may not question a church's interpretation of its own internal documents.

If such rights were extended to for-profit corporations, much of modern corporate law would have to be discarded. By describing their internal structure as one of a religious hierarchy, those running a corporation could engage in all manner of manipulation free from the fear of governmental oversight or judicial review. Many private employees would be vulnerable, for the first time since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to discriminatory treatment due to the religious preferences of their employers.

The special protection that is given to religious organizations so that they are free to perform their religious functions cannot logically or properly be ripped from its rightful context and applied to secular, for-profit corporations.

The Temple of Hercules Industries, Inc.

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 3)

Q::Companies are legal fictions in that they are not natural persons, like humans.  It is a convention as to which rights they have and which rights they don't relative to person-hood.  What is the legal argument for why a company should have the tight to speech but not a right to vote?

In his response Lynn highlight a very important point:  ",,,we allow people in business to set up a corporation for the purpose of getting certain legal rights and avoiding certain legal responsibilities." 

Lynn explains this by use of a slip and fall lawsuit.  In general, if you are set up as a company and your company is sued, it is not the individual owner(s) as such that are being sued but the company (corporation) they set themselves up as to protect themselves.  [In other words direct personal responsibility is removed from the mix.]

Lynn continues, "Now when it becomes convenient for those same people who set up a corporation (for their benefit) to now all the sudden want to talk about their INDIVIDUAL rights as the guy who runs the company; they really want to have it both ways."

Basically what Lynn is saying, they want corporate protections (when convenient for them) and to be able to use those protection to cover their individual asses (ie bankruptcy).  But when things don't quite go the way they want, on a individual basis, they want to throw the title of corporation out the window.  Eat cake much?

Lynn does submit that corporation do have some free-speech right; the right to advertise for example.  But when it comes to exercising religious activity not so much.

Q::How does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act figure into all this?

[Lynn's response did not seem very clear to me so I will be paraphrasing and clarifying were possible.]

The RFRA (1993), which is supported by a large number of groups including the ACLU, was brought into effect for the purpose of protecting religious INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS against government interference with the practice of their faith.

The example Lynn used is as follows: You are a male, Muslim, (city paid) firefighter who wants to grow a beard. [For clarity, Muhammad wanted his Muslims to look different from infidel Christians and Jews, he ordered them to trim closely the mustache and grow the beard.  The beard is a dictate of religious adherence.]  The (city) fire department you are employed by has a "no facial hair" policy.  Under the RFRA you can bring a lawsuit if that law (or other "governmental" action) substantially burdens your religious practices.  It is then up to the government to demonstrate that its actions served a compelling interest and that there were no less restrictive ways to accomplish its goals.

Lynn continues by pointing out that during the years that the RFRA was being discussed no one ever thought that the RFRA applied to FOR PROFIT companies.  What this law implies is that "churches could make some decisions on their own, church autonomy, like where to put an alter in a building.  The government can't come in and say, 'put it on the right side' if you want it on the left side.  It is this kind of very modest protections for the right of people to worship as they choose.  That is what this statute is all about."

"There is not a shred of legislative history that suggests that this was for Hobby Lobby, for the Mennonite furniture company or for other groups of people who are out there agitating for why they should be exempted from the ACA's provision of insurance coverage of contraception for women employees."

"Some of these companies are huge.  Hobby Lobby employs thousands of women around the US and they will be dictators of the CONSCIENCE RIGHTS of these employees if they prevail with the SCOTUS."

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 2)

Opening comments dealt with the overall implication for the separation of church/state (SOCAS), medical freedom, and peoples freedom to make their own medical decisions.

Lynn states that the primary concern is contraceptive coverage under the ACA; but the agenda of the Religious Right is the right to opt out of ANY federal or state law(s) they do not like because of actual or alleged violation of THEIR religious principles.

Q::So if Hobby Lobby (HL) prevails, would that open the door for a Jehovah Witness owned company to not have to insure blood transfusions, or a Christian Scientist owned company to not insure anything at all in terms of health care?

Lynn agrees that could be a possibility also pointing out that it could also affect Pharma companies. Consider the gelatin used to make tablets, it comes from pork or beef products, which makes them unusable based on the belief systems of many Muslims.

Lynn then poses a "rhetorical" question of sorts: If you can be exempt from an insurance law that is supposed to bring medical care to everyone, why not just ask to be exempt (as some of these groups have) from pay equity statutes, from civil rights laws (effecting lesbian and gay Americans)? There is no stopping this once you go down this slope of exemptions based on religious claims for FOR PROFIT COMPANIES.

Following the "for profit companies" line of thought,,,

Q::That's really the issue isn't it, that these are for profit, large employers? Actual religious organizations that employ people already have an exemption under the ACA, correct?

In his response, Lynn draws a comparison to the Citizens United (CU) case in which corporations, though fictional entities, were given broad free speech rights. "If you don't like free speech rights for companies, you certainly don't like a 'conscience coverage' for those same companies."

"What these folks really want is to create a kind of fictional CORPORATE CONSCIENCE. The next time I see (in the case of Hobby Lobby) a DIY gnome sitting next to me in a pew in church; or the next time I sit on a piece of wooden furniture (made by a Mennonite company) and it starts praying with me, then I'll say 'maybe it does have a conscience.

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt1)

On December 9th, Lindsay Beyerstein of Point of Inquiry engaged in a conversation with Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The topic of conversation was the Hobby Lobby case that is currently being looked at by the SCOTUS. Lynn explains how Hobby Lobby's court challenge of the birth control proviso in Obamacare could open the door for Jehovah's Witness-owned companies to refuse to cover blood transfusions, or for Christian Scientist-owned companies to refuse to cover any medical care.

For the past few days I have been picking away at the interview.  Writing up a sort of transcript and filling in some gaps that some may not be aware of.  I am about half way through the 30 minute interview, and will be publishing information in multiple posts.
__________

A few items for clarification purposes: This case is also linked to/with: Autocam Corp. v. Sebelius AND Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.

Autocam is Catholic owned, Conestoga is Mennonite owned. Both "lost" in their challenge in regards to Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which prohibits the government from substantially burdening a PERSON'S exercise of religion. (Think Citizens United, corporations are people). The 6th and 3rd Circuit courts ruled that a for-profit company does not qualify as a “person” under RFRA and therefore cannot use it to challenge the HHS mandate. This contrasts with Hobby Lobby in which the 10th Circuit ruled in Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius that for-profit businesses are protected by RFRA.

Prior to listening to this interview, a few conversations amongst friends came up in regards to some of the issues involved.  Robert Baty in a guest column featured on Forbes discusses "how the thinking behind the desire for conscience exceptions to Obamacare provisions compares to that behind the clergy housing allowance." In the article Baty connects some interesting dots and sums up his thoughts as follows:

Another possible analogy also comes to mind that might be worthy of notice; some of most vocal apologists for doing little or nothing with reference to the income tax free ministerial housing allowance might look and sound like some of the most vocal apologists for expanding the health care exemption to any organization, business or individual who utters the magic words “religious conscience”.

As we will see this "conscience exceptions" or "religious conscience" idea  is an issue that Lynn hammers homes in the interview using the term "corporate conscience:"

a business owner's claim that their consciences prevents them from, in this case, providing insurance coverage for their employees knowing that some of them will use the coverage to get birth control pills. 

This conscience claim would primarily be in regards to Autocam as it is a Catholic tenet/doctrinal issue based on Pope Paul VI Humane Vitae of 1968. But since most American Catholics have ignored this "mandate" I'm am unsure as to what influence this would have. Although there are 5 Catholic judges sitting on the SCOTUS. One must also take into consideration the "false" beliefs/claims that birth control pills are abortifactants.

[For disclosure, Robert Baty and I are "friends" on Facebook and discuss various issues.  His articles are included  because they are relevant to the issue at hand.]

A second issue that came to mind in discussions prior to publication of the interview:  Would it be wrong to call Hobby Lobby (ownership as well as corporate entity) a bit hypocritical in their stance considering a majority of their product (I have read as high as 98% of said product) comes from China where pregnancy termination is State sanctioned? Estimates of 300+ million abortions over the course of the past 20 years, but yet they are bitching about contraception!  A point echoed by a recent comment attached to the interview:

The most obvious line of questioning that should emerge in challenging the Hobby Lobby religious exemption should start with their purchase of goods for resale from China, an officially atheist state that can enforce its one child policy with abortion. With well over 90% of its resale goods imported from China - thus allowing the company to make significant enough profit to expand into the large corporation that it is - where is the fidelity to this religious tenet that they claim for an exemption to pay for certain types of contraception?

And finally, one very important point to keep in mind when considering this case (Hobby Lobby), only FOR PROFIT corporations are affected. Lynn makes a very important point concerning this early on the interview.