Fox & Friends (I got some mail from the so-called “Family” orgs about this, too) have been doing a little editorializing lying.
Florida’s Santa Rosa County School District has a long and unrepentant history of unconstitutionally sponsoring prayers, proselytizing students, and generally promoting particular religious beliefs throughout district schools. In August 2008, no longer able to bear this infringement on their liberties, two students at Pace High School sued the district with the assistance of the ACLU. Many in the community reacted in an uproar: the student plaintiffs were vilified in the media and threatened with rape and death, among other efforts to intimidate them, and district officials vowed to fight back. Pace High Principal H. Frank Lay was perhaps the most vocal, declaring during a fiery sermon at an off-campus church service (MP3): “This country is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, there is no doubt about that. . . . I walk up and down the halls everyday and I see tons of kids that aren’t saved. They have hollow eyes. They are void of a spirit. They need Jesus.”
[...]
But as LiberalViewer so artfully points out in this YouTube video breaking down these Fox segments, when you take a closer look at the actual facts here (which Fox largely distorts or ignores), the upcoming contempt proceedings are wholly unremarkable:
[...]
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see You Tube’s privacy statement on their website and Google’s privacy statement on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU’s privacy statement, click here. (nice! -smijer)Lay and Freeman openly violated a federal court order (something judges do not take kindly to) and now they must answer to the judge — facing the same consequences that may be imposed on any person subject to a criminal contempt proceeding in any case. There is nothing unusual about that. Indeed, even if they are found in contempt, it is unlikely that the court will order jail time here; no one — including the ACLU — has argued that prison would be an appropriate sanction in this particular proceeding. Undeterred by these facts, Fox News nevertheless seems more intent on sensationalizing the case than reporting the truth.
I’m chalking this one up to the two party system, too. Saul Alinsky might have written the playbook, but Fox & friends have memorized it. Pissing on the ACLU might make sense in terms of persuading people to vote Republican, but it doesn’t make sense in terms of trying to undermine and defeat the best friend of religious liberty in this country – something Christians need just as much as anyone else.
In the 1970s, a Jewish lawyer working for the ACLU was offered a chance to represent a neo-nazi group that had chosen to march in Skokie, IL, with the highest population of Jews in Illinois. The city of Skokie tried to prevent this. Guess what – he took the case and won. I wish the ACLU took the Second Amendment as seriously as they take the first. But any individual or group whose goal is to subvert the Constitution on First Amendment issues will have to go through the ACLU first. Thank heaven for their vigilance.
As I posted on Jlue’s blog:
I do love how saying the blessing before a meal morphed into “no longer able to bear this infringement on their liberties”. If someone breaks a court order & is in contempt, they they’re liable to meet the punishment that they’ve incurred and deserve. But, the actions that the group has taken illustrates that the ACLU pretty much deserves the scorn that much of the nation points in their direction.
Congratulations, guys, you kept a high-schooler from speaking because she might mention Jesus (gasp) thereby cauing people to “no longer able to bear this infringement on their liberties”. Thank heaven for their vigilance.
[note: I'm not on federal or state property, so I can, indeed, type "heaven" without reprisal. I think]
BTW, an update on ABC’s Mark Halperin and how he keeps the network from leaning left:
MARK HALPERIN: There’s three things that are true: We’re the only industrialized democracy that doesn’t cover every citizen. That is immoral.
LOU DOBBS: That’s immoral?
HALPERIN: Yes, to be a country this wealthy and be the only industrialized democracy that hasn’t figured out how to cover everyone. Two, every other industrialized democracy has done this through a government program. And three, the President faces of tough task, because this country is not for a single payer, and it’s very hard to build anything else.
Not exactly from the Fox News/Limbaugh talking points. [ahem]
Looking for this from a news source… so far finding only at Washington Times (!!!!), and a few anti-civil-liberties blogs. I’ll let you know if I can confirm it… I don’t doubt that something vaguely similar to that happened. I do doubt that it the Times represented the actual events accurately.
Correction to the above – a *lot* of ant-civil-liberties blogs. Including a KKK message board – lol. I would be interested in hearing the truth about what prevented Allen from speaking, and whether the ACLU or the court was actually responsible for it. Still not finding it except on the blogs who believe that people should be required to pray “as the hypocrites do”.
I can understand that, it’s a biased source. I thought the same about the New Yorker piece you linked yesterday.
ALWAYS GOOD to know the source of things.
I recall a few years back when there was a private Christian high school in Georgia (don’t recall the name) that had a great football team & was playing for its class-level in the state playoffs. Long story short, they were hosting the game on their own field, they paid for the officials from their own pockets, there was nary a single square inch of state, city, county or local land that the game was taking place upon, but since it was a “state sanctioned game” – it being a playoff game and all – and since the other team was from a public school (even though they’d voluntarily traveled to PRIVATE PROPERTY in order to play the game – the ACLU was threatening a lawsuit if anyone said prayer over the speaker-system before the game, as was the custom.
Yeah, defending the rights of everyone is a great bulleting board item, but sometimes the ACLU really does earn its badge of scorn.
What blogs are “anti-civil-liberties”? There are people who are against liberties.
Hit “submit” too soon:
“There are people who are against civil liberties in the USA?”
You know, the Jews in Skokie probably thought the ACLU earned its badge of scorn, too. I agree it’s a thankless job, and the ACLU “earns” scorn from those who feel their own ox is being gored. But, you know, when it’s your turn to have someone sticking up for your liberties (and I don’t mean trying make martyrs out of people who want to go beyond what the Constitutional allows like the ADL) – you’ll be glad they’re around.
I said “anti-civil-liberties” kind of tongue in cheek. I’m really talking about the ones that are anti-ACLU… the ones that are committed to securing special privileges for Christianity (or certain brands of it) to the point that they lose track of the importance of civil liberties and without really meaning to, try to undermine them.
Pensacola News Journal:
Thank God for the ACLU. Also:
Obviously, an act of a criminal.
I think I’ll file it under “fascist ACLU big-brother types who don’t want people to say the name Jesus in public”. Looks to me like FNC covered a story that few mainstream outlets want to publicize, and we all know why.
For further illustration: Let’s all prepare ourselves for the level of media coverage of Cindy Sheehan’s camping outside the president’s vacation this month & compare it to the coverage she got when she camped outside Dubya’s vacation in Texas.
I *am* glad they’re around. As sick as they may be, in this country a group of KKKers has the right to march down the street just as much as some sick anti-war people have to burn the American flag. It’s cases like this, where they’re going after someone for blessing food before eating it and a co-worker playing the role of rat & trying to project it as teachers standing in classrooms indoctrinating children (looks like the ALCU is being much less honest in their reporting than F&F, btw), that make people hate the ACLU. If a teacher were doing a virtual Sunday school lesson during class, I’d be alongside the ACLU in trying to keep it from happening.
That wasn’t the case. Someone blessed the freaking food before eating and now they’re facing the legal system because another worker says “I know I can’t pray before I eat in front of a group of schoolchildren”.
Welcome to America, 2009, where you must keep some thoughts to yourself.
You had a rough time finding it because the ‘real’ news outlets are too busy telling us that the people against Obama’s health care initiatives are white racists brandishing weapons or they’re still reporting on Sarah Palin’s family.
If you can call it covering, I guess. I’ll continue to file it under “lies & the lying liars” since they went out of their way to explain things in such a way as to lend a false impression about where the contempt charges originated, left out the history of militancy and indoctrination practiced by the functionaries in question, left out the fact that the court is holding the contempt hearing because the functionaries were reported by a person attending the event and that it had nothing to do with the ACLU, and left out the fact that jail is not even an optional result for one of the contemptors and an extremely unlikely one, not advocated by the ACLU or anyone else, for the others. Instead they portrayed this as coming out of nowhere, with the ACLU pushing the contempt and trying to jail the functionaries, and suggested that the functionaries were really “facing jail” for praying as the hypocrites do.
Ok, bearing in mind that this guy was under a court order because of a past history that went a lot further than “blessing the freaking food”… the fact is that this isn’t about prayer, which can be done by each individual silently as they see fit – but a public invocation. Anybody can pray anywhere they want to, but there are limits on doing it as the hypocrites do – not because that’s what Jesus commanded – but because that coincides with leading others in prayer which is very specifically not an appropriate function of the state.
btw – what I couldn’t find reported was anything about why Mary Allen didn’t get to speak at the graduation. Not even Fox reported that (or the Pensacola paper you linked to). The only thing we get is a snippet from Washington Times, and the blogs that source back to it. I would be interested in hearing the real story there. She’s also at Pace and tied up in all this, but has nothing to do with the story Fox mis-reported.
One of my kids brought home homework from the “Bible History” class that is big in Tennessee high schools. It was like a Sunday School lesson, only more religious. I didn’t say/do anything, though. I chose not to fight that battle.
It’s in the link & I quoted from it: While the lunchtime prayer is the issue before the court, Lay garnered far more publicity after Wyrosdick decided, on the advice of the district’s lawyers, that the Student Government Association president and senior class president could not speak at graduation ceremonies.
Obviously from left-over time, since TN schools have already mastered the basics of education {rimshot}
If it were a class on the various religions, I got no problem. If it was a sneaky way to ‘preach’ the bible, then that is, as the Fonz would say, wrong-a-mundo.
-
As in “saying it out loud”.
Reading the lyrics from a rap song. Legal.
Reading from Heather has two mommies. Legal.
Saying “Bush sucks”. Legal.
Getting kids to write letters to congress in ’96 asking why the Republicans wanted to starve them. Legal.
Playing Al Gore’s enviro-religious movie during SCIENCE CLASSES. Legal (and was done).
Saying “thanks for this food, Lord”. Banned.
Appropriate functions of the state legal.
Lastly: every Christian is a hypocrite, so don’t stress over someone pushing a line on a web site. I’m a hypocrite, Billy Graham is a hypocrite; we’re all sinners, that’s the first criteria in accepting Christ.
Eh, html removed part of something. The next to last item is supposed to say “Appropriate functions of the state does not equal legal”.
Why wouldn’t it be?
Why wouldn’t it be? Generally speaking this is a positive thing… but even if it were neutral or negative, what does the constitution say about tolerance education?
Advancing a partisan political position – should not be legal. I don’t know if it is or not… but it shouldn’t be.
See above… shouldn’t be legal if it is…
Next you’re going to tell me they indoctrinated kids with Avogadro’s chemico-religious number, made them read Shakespeare’s litero-religious plays, and taught them about the historico-religious Civil War!!! Damn them!
Technically, as a function of the state – yes.. falling under very clear prohibitions of separation of church and state that have been recognized for quite some time now. Not that it doesn’t happen all the time. Most people don’t care too much. Students don’t file suit over it, and the ACLU isn’t inclined to take it up. But yeah – illegal, because the state doesn’t have any business thanking “the Lord” for food. And, for somebody under a court injunction after turning their school into Falwell-land – can get you into trouble.
Look – sending in a false resume to a potential employer is bad, but not illegal. Checking the wrong box on your tax forms – less bad, but illegal. Throwing out a bunch of red herrings doesn’t make it legal – doesn’t make it should be legal to take advantage of your state position to make state-sponsored prayers. I can list a million things I don’t like about the way schools do things – some of which probably should be and aren’t illegal. So, what? “They did it too” isn’t a justification.
That’s as it may be. I don’t care. I don’t know anyone who isn’t a hypocrite. I am just having fun with the fact that all of these people are up in arms because the state doesn’t allot them time and payroll to use its offices to defy their own Bible and Savior. That’s hilarious to me. It doesn’t have any bearing on the discussion. It’s just funny… It’s kind of like saying that my rights as a Christian are infringed because the courts frown on me committing adultery. It’s my right as a Christian to commit adultery!!! Look – I’m being religiously oppressed because if I commit adultery, the court will give the kids to my wife! Help! Help! I’m being repressed! Now you see the violence inherent in the system!
So the school district, not the ACLU or the court. Still would be interested to know what lay behind that decision.
That was in the quote I put forth in my first comment on the matter: “Mr. Staver said the district also agreed to forbid senior class President Mary Allen from speaking at the school’s May 30 graduation ceremony on the chance that the young woman, a known Christian, might say something religious.”
I pointed that out a bit earlier, from the PNJ link: “The rationale: Faculty and administrators help select those student officers. If one of them chose to give a prayer in violation of the court order, it would constitute an endorsement by the school and place school officials in jeopardy of being held in contempt of court.
Because, as you pointed out, “there are limits…”
Ok – sorry I skimmed earlier. That’s a plausible explanation. And, I’m sure the school is taking full responsibility for that decision, wise or unwise, right or wrong.. because nobody forced them to make it that way, and because they wouldn’t have even been worried about it if they weren’t already in a heap of trouble over much more major issues.
I don’t know if this qualifies as “overreaction” on the part of the school system. I do know that there is a history of holding the ACLU accountable for overreacting school systems, though. Which is dumb. In most cases – where the issue is clear – if a school districts overreacts to the point where they are violating students’ rights – the ACLU is available to help the students.
The school district made their own bed – they’re going to have to play it cool for a while, until they’ve had their turn lying in it.
Let me make sure I have this right: the school is being heavy handed and Ms. Allen ought to consider reaching out to the ACLU if she ponders saying prayer out loud in front of a group of students, because they’ll have her back.
Certainly the school is responsible for the Ms. Allen decision. Whether it is heavy handed or not would probably require more background knowledge.
If she has a legitimate complaint, the ACLU is the big guns. She could go to one of the “house” Christian legal groups, but they don’t have the track record the ACLU does. Judging by your emphasis, maybe her case isn’t so strong. I’m guessing that if that is her true, expressed intention – to lead a prayer at a school event – then she wouldn’t have much of a case… that would be one she should take to the ADL. They enjoy sure-losers that they can use for propaganda. But, yeah – if she has a legitimate case, then the ACLU is her best friend.
ADL? Maybe I’m thinking about the ACLJ… I get the acronyms for the house organs mixed up.
Ha – I just noticed how close the “J” & the “U” are on my keyboard… If I were a conspiracy theorist…
Putting that another way – if the school district is banning her from speaking when she would otherwise have the right to – just because they believe that she is a Christian and that Christians are incapable of controlling their urge to pray out loud… then she has a case & the ACLU would likely pick it up – at least in a memo to the school. Historically when schools have been unclear on the rules after a kerfluffle on 1st amendment grounds, the ACLU has helped them by briefing them on where appropriate lines can be drawn.
If she has expressed to the school that she will violate their policy and will make religious speech at a school function, then she’s probably best suited to one of the ACLJ type orgs.
I’m guessing the latter is the case, but I don’t know for sure.
By the way – I can think of precisely one difference between silent prayer & the voiced kind – it is a matter of who can hear you. CAn you think of others?
ADF = Alliance Defence Fund. ACLJ = American Center for Law and Justice. If memory serves, both are Dobsonian counterparts to the Anti-Defamation League and the ACLU. But, I forget which one likes the sure losers they can use for propaganda. Occasionally they get a real nuggest like the San Diego Bible Study that ran afoul of some city bureaucrats.