Update: Dixie County Lawsuit media coverage

A few months ago I mentioned that I was going to contact some people with the ACLU and the local Dixie County papers to try to get an update on the status of the case.  I didn't hear anything back, and now I found out from Prof. Friedman's excellent blog that proponents of church-state separation have won a primary challenge:  we have legal standing to sue.  The ACLU found a non-resident of the county who was nonetheless given legal standing because of the nature of this anonymous person's business with the county in buying land there.  Here is the LexisNexis link to ACLU of Florida Inc. v. Dixie County Florida, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61177 (ND FL, Aug. 8, 2008)

I have updated the list of media related to the whole Dixie County debacle as it has unfolded.

Regarding LTE (letters to the editor) "con" means the person writing is againstthe 10C monument & "pro" means they approve of it:

1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28/06
2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30/06
3. Alligator -- 11/30/06
4. Alligator -- 12/1/06 (editorial)
5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1/06
6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02/06
7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con (12/2/06)
8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7/06
9. 2 More Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro (12/12/06), con (12/17/06)
10. St. Petersburg Times -- 1/3/07
11. St. Petersburg Times (LTE) -- con, 1/13/07 (4th letter down; response to 1/3/07 article)
12. Gainesville Sun -- 2/7/07
13. ACLU News Release -- 2/7/07
    
14. Reuters (Miami) -- 2/7/07
15. Gainesville Sun -- 2/8/07
16. St. Petersburg Times -- 2/8/07
17. Alligator (LTE): -- con, 2/9/07, (see text here)
18. Dixie County Advocate -- 2/15/07
19. Orlando Sentinel -- 2/17/07
20. Gainesville Sun (LTE) -- pro, 2/17/07
21. Dixie County Advocate (LTE) -- con, 2/24/07
22. Liberty Counsel -- 3/8/07
23. CNS News -- 3/12/07
24. Florida Humanists Association -- 4/9/07, (also here and here)
25. atheism.about.com -- 4/27/07, Austin Cline
26. Dixie County Advocate -- 9/27/07, Issue 40, Page 18
27. Dixie County Advocate blog -- 6/11/08, linked to my YouTube video

other media (blogs):

1. KipEsquire -- 11/28/06
2. Florida Progressive Coalition -- 4/4/07
3. John Pieret -- 4/15/07
4. Prof. Friedman -- 8/14/08

rev 11/22/08

Blast from the past

I was just googling for a few handles and names I have used on the internet to see what sort of "dirt" people could potentially dig upon me, and stumbled across this copy of my interview on H&C. It's essentially the same video that I uploaded to Youtube, but a little better quality and without the copyright issue since it is hosted at FoxNews. I also pulled the .swf file link. See here for the full list of Dixie County articles and media.

I'm going to contact Brandon Hensler, Director of Communications of the ACLU of FL, as well as the PR department of the Liberty Counsel to get an update on where the case stands. For now, check out the latest I have on that story (with all media links) and everything I've written on it.

Dixie County media roundup (also see here):

1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28/06


2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30/06


3. Alligator -- 11/30/06, or here


4. Alligator (editorial) -- 12/1/06, or here
   


5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1/06


6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02/06


7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con 12/2/06


8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7/06


9. 2 More Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro 12/12/06, con 12/17/06


10. St. Petersburg Times -- 1/3/07


11. St. Petersburg Times (LTE) -- con, 1/13/07 (4th letter down; response to 1/3/07 article)


12. Gainesville Sun -- 2/7/07


13. ACLU News Release -- 2/7/07
    


14. Reuters (Miami) -- 2/7/07


15. Gainesville Sun -- 2/8/07


16. St. Petersburg Times -- 2/8/07


17. Alligator (LTE): -- con, 2/9/07, or here


18. Dixie County Advocate -- 2/15/07, or here


19. Gainesville Sun (LTE) -- pro, 2/17/07, or here


20. Dixie County Advocate (LTE) -- con, 2/24/07, or here


21. Liberty Counsel -- 3/8/07


22. CNS News -- 3/12/07


23. Florida Humanists Association -- 4/9/07, (also here and here)

other media (blogs):

1. KipEsquire -- 11/28/06


2. Florida Progressive Coalition -- 4/4/07


3. John Pieret -- 4/15/07

I'll update after I find more information on the case status.

Alligator article on my interview on H&C

Because The Alligator's website underwent a great deal of revision, the old link to the article covering my interview on H&C is dead, and the archives are not yet working that far back. According to the editors, it may be a very long time for the pages to be updated. Thus, I decided to go in to my cached version of the page (thank you Google Desktop) and paste the text below so I can replace the dead link. Here is the article:

Student debates on Fox
By BRITTANY DAVIS
posted Thursday, November 30, 2006 1:00 a.m.
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/061130atheist.php

"Do you love the Lord?" locals asked strangers who visited the Dixie County Courthouse on Wednesday.

Daniel Morgan drove about an hour west of Gainesville to Cross City, the seat of Dixie County, to argue against the courthouse's six-ton monument bearing the Ten Commandments on a segment of the Fox News program "Hannity & Colmes."

Morgan, a UF chemistry graduate student who is president of UF's Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Student Association at UF, said Fox News called him at 1:30 p.m. Wednesday and asked him to come to the debate.

When introducing the segment, Hannity accused him of coming to Cross City to find someone who would sue the city over the monument. Morgan said that he hadn't and that he had never been to Dixie County before he was invited by Fox News.

He said he was thrilled to be invited.

"They offered me a ride, and I said I didn't need one because I was afraid he would get someone else to go (who didn't need a ride)," he said.

Morgan, who speaks with a Southern drawl, comes from Richlands, Va., a town of about 4,000 people.

His opponent was former county attorney Joey Lander. Lander is one of two lawyers in Cross City, a town of about 1,775 people and at least 20 churches.

Lander said the community supports the monument and the media is making an issue out of nothing.

The $20,000 monument, which also bears the phrase "Love God and keep his commandments," was given to the city by a private donor.

"It's already there, and it's not meant to coerce or endorse any particular religion," Lander said.

Lander is half-owner of the daily newspaper, which he said had only received calls in support of the monument. The one complaint the newspaper received was an editorial from a Gainesville resident.

Each man had about two minutes to present his interpretation of the First Amendment and the legal and philosophical implications of the monument before the satellite link was disrupted and the interview came to an early end.

Morgan argued that legal precedent demonstrated that a religious monument on government property is unconstitutional.

A crowd of 20 people gathered before the event, and many argued in favor of the importance of Jesus and the monument to their community.

The group was irked by the presence of Morgan and the Fox News cameramen.

One member of the group yelled, "This atheist is coming down here to take away our Ten Commandments!"

Copyright © 1996–2007 Alligator Online and Campus Communications.

God Finally Talks

Everyone has heard by now of Ernie Chambers' attempt to sue God. This morning I read that God was granted immunity from the suit by the Douglas County District Court and that the Almighty had a message:

It adds that blaming God for human oppression and suffering misses an important point.

"I created man and woman with free will and next to the promise of immortal life, free will is my greatest gift to you," according to the response, as read by Friend.

Oh come on, God, that canard doesn't hold up to logical analysis.

1) The free will theodicy fails under the analysis of making "freedom" an unqualified, universal highest good and goal, unconditioned by its consequences:

If you really believe that it is better to honor someone's freedom to do as they wish than to restrict that freedom when it causes harm, then you would committed to having to introduce, at every opportunity, the option to do wrong, since this represents free will, no matter the consequences. Thus, the next time your toddler asks for scissors or a knife or a gun, if you deny her, you are not being God-like and giving her unconditional freedom. That's a retarded claim, isn't it?

Also, the capacity for humans to act out their will/intentions must be separated out from the will/intent itself. The rapist who waits for a jogger in the park will only succeed if the contingencies, such as when a jogger decides to go jogging, whether she is carrying pepper spray, whether she has taken self-defense classes, whether a cop goes by at the same time...etc., etc., etc., are all correctly in place. God is supposed to be in control of these contingencies that allow evil to actually occur.

Also, why would one person's will be granted, while both another person's and God's own wills are overturned?

2) The free will theodicy fails under the burden of natural, impersonal evils:

No one wills for a tsunami to wipe out 200,000 people in Indonesia. No one wills for AIDS to eradicate millions of human beings and orphan millions more. No one wills for natural disasters and natural evils at all...except the one in control of Nature, apparently...

Quit fooling around and just admit you don't exist, God! :)

In related news, please explain to me, someone, anyone, how your 10 Commandments form the basis of our Constitutional Repupublic and its laws? Go down the list of the Bill of Rights and you find direct conflicts between the 10C and the 10A (amendments). It takes a mental contortionist to hold to the otherwise. Our laws are in no wise based on the ancient Jewish laws, and societies had laws against murder and theft and perjury long before (and long after) the Jews did.

Liberty Counsel Moves to Dismiss Case Against Dixie County: No Plaintiffs Named

Things look a little dim for the ACLU's case to remove the infamous Decalogue of Dixie County. You must have standing to sue. Once they have it, things will be dim for Dixie.

I talked with Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, on the phone a few days ago. He told me that the ACLU had no named plaintiffs in the case, as I had previously hoped. I thought that the ACLU had filed an order to keep the names of the plaintiffs out of the public record. In talking with Mathew [yes, just one "t"], he informed me that, because they had full discovery, he would know if that was the case -- and that it wasn't.

Therefore, the Liberty Counsel has filed a motion to dismiss the case against Dixie County. I am betting it will be dismissed because there are no plaintiffs.

Keep in mind what this doesn't mean: that the county will win if and when plaintiffs do file suit. Quite the opposite, in fact. Once the ACLU or FFRF finally have some plaintiffs, the county will lose, and lose soundly, even though their attorneys feel emboldened about their win in the Eighth Circuit. This monument has an explicit endorsement of religion which no other monument, ever, has had ("Love God and Keep His Commandments"), and our Eleventh Circuit already has a ruling on the books for stare decisis, one with which we're all familiar (Roy Moore's case).

The Liberty Counsel won't pay the plaintiff's legal fees, and the county will waste money that should and could go to doing something real and tangible -- like educating its schoolchildren, repairing roads, or buying the impoverished food and shelter. It makes me nauseated. Keep in mind that the county's liability insurance carrier dropped them like a hot potato, and so they will bear the brunt of the costs whenever there is a plaintiff with standing:

The Board voted unanimously to let Liberty Counsel represent the county in the lawsuit filed by the ACL. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in an attempt to have the Ten Commandments monument moved from the courthouse steps. County Attorney Leenette McMillan informed the Board that by choosing Liberty Counsel to represent the county in the lawsuit, the county will not be covered by its existing liability company. The Board chose Liberty Counsel because of the firm’s expertise in this type of lawsuit. Liberty Counsel has agreed to represent the county free of charge. (source) [bold emphasis mine]

I hope someone comes forward and is willing to be named as plaintiff. I really, really hope so.

My interview on FauxNews can be watched here, my detailed analysis of the legal issues can be found here, and everything I've written on this situation, including extensive local media coverage, here.

1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28
2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30
3. Alligator -- 11/30
4. Alligator -- 12/1 (editorial)
5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1
6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02
7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con (12/2)
8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7
9. 2 More Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro (12/12), con (12/17)
10. St. Petersburg Times -- 1/3/07
11. St. Petersburg Times -- letter (con) 1/13/07 (4th letter down; response to 1/3/07 article above)
    
12. Gainesville Sun -- 2/7
13. ACLU News Release -- 2/7
    
14. Reuters (Miami) -- 2/7
    
15. Gainesville Sun -- 2/8
16. St. Petersburg Times -- 2/8
17. Alligator (LTE): -- 2-9 (con), (I wrote this one, see more HERE)
18. Dixie County Advocate -- 2/15
19. Gainesville Sun (LTE) -- 2/17 (pro)
20. Dixie County Advocate (LTE) -- 2/24 (con)
21. Liberty Counsel -- 3/8
22. Florida Humanists Association -- 4/9, (also here and here)

________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state, Politics

Dixie County's Liability Insurer Drops Coverage -- County Faces Huge Potential Losses

John Pieret pointed out an angle on the 10C case in Dixie County that I had not yet thought of:

...it is unlikely that any insurance carrier the county might have would consent to Liberty Counsel representing its interests, so that probably means that the county is uninsured or, as was the case in the Dover Intelligent Design case, the county commissioners are violating the standard policy provisions, allowing the insurer to disclaim. [bold emphasis mine]

After doing a little digging, I found out that he was dead on target:

The Board voted unanimously to let Liberty Counsel represent the county in the lawsuit filed by the ACL. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in an attempt to have the Ten Commandments monument moved from the courthouse steps. County Attorney Leenette McMillan informed the Board that by choosing Liberty Counsel to represent the county in the lawsuit, the county will not be covered by its existing liability company. The Board chose Liberty Counsel because of the firm’s expertise in this type of lawsuit. Liberty Counsel has agreed to represent the county free of charge. (source) [bold emphasis mine]

Wow. I am going to make some more phone calls and find out more about the ramifications of losing your liability coverage. I want to know exactly how much risk they're taking here, and their citizens deserve to be informed. I know the ACLU's policy is not to pursue much in damages (if any -- in this case, it is "not to exceed $20"), but I wonder if that "kid gloves" strategy ought to be amended in the face of stubborn and stupid decisions like Dixie County has made...

My detailed analysis of the legal issues can be found here, and everything I've written on this situation, including extensive local media coverage, here.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state, Politics

Dixie County Update: County Will Fight Suit, Hires Falwell's "Liberty Counsel"

It appears that Dixie County is going to do something very stupid: fight the case, aided by Falwell's theocratic legal group, the oxymoronic "Liberty Counsel". From the Florida Baptist Witness:

CROSS CITY (FBW)—Liberty Counsel, based in Orlando, will represent Dixie County in a federal lawsuit filed by the ACLU after the county allowed a local company to erect a Ten Commandments monument near the county courthouse in Cross City. Anderson Columbia, a highway construction company, purchased the six-ton black granite monument and received permission to place it near the courthouse. According to a press release from Liberty Counsel, the ACLU, claiming the monument is a violation of the Establishment Clause, is seeking the removal of the monument, damages and attorney's fees.

"Dixie County is not establishing a religion by allowing a private company to place a monument in a location where similarly donated monuments may be placed," said Matt Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. "The Ten Commandments are universally recognized as symbolic of the law, and are appropriate for display in courthouses and similar settings. Public display of the Commandments is consistent with our nation's history and with the First Amendment. There are more than 50 depictions of the Ten Commandments in the U.S. Supreme Court, and there have been thousands of displays throughout the country for many years."

They will lose, and lose soundly, even though they feel emboldened about their win in the Eighth Circuit. This monument has an explicit endorsement of religion which no other monument, ever, has had ("Love God and Keep His Commandments"), and our Eleventh Circuit already has a ruling on the books for stare decisis, one with which we're all familiar (Roy Moore's case).

The Liberty Counsel won't pay the plaintiff's legal fees, and the county will waste money that should and could go to doing something real and tangiable -- like educating its schoolchildren, repairing roads, or buying the impoverished food and shelter. It makes me nauseated.

Heather Wellman, new executive director of the Florida Humanists Association, wrote two articulate (and moderately-stanced) articles enunciating the multiple ills that these cases represent for the health of our country and Constitution: here and here.

If there is anyone out there who gambles, I am willing to bet a large amount of money that the plaintiffs will win their case. Email me and we'll discuss terms and odds. If you're willing to take the bet, I've also got a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.

My detailed analysis of the legal issues can be found here, and everything I've written on this situation, including extensive local media coverage, here.

1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28
2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30
3. Alligator -- 11/30
4. Alligator -- 12/1 (editorial)
5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1
6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02
7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con (12/2)
8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7
9. 2 More Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro (12/12), con (12/17)
10. St. Petersburg Times -- 1/3/07
11. St. Petersburg Times -- letter (con) 1/13/07 (4th letter down; response to 1/3/07 article above)
    
12. Gainesville Sun -- 2/7
13. ACLU News Release -- 2/7
    
14. Reuters (Miami) -- 2/7
    
15. Gainesville Sun -- 2/8
16. St. Petersburg Times -- 2/8
17. Alligator (LTE): -- 2-9 (con), (I wrote this one, see more HERE)
18. Dixie County Advocate -- 2/15
19. Gainesville Sun (LTE) -- 2/17 (pro)
20. Dixie County Advocate (LTE) -- 2/24 (con)
21. Liberty Counsel -- 3/8
22. Florida Humanists Association -- 4/9, (also here and here)

________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state, Politics

A Must-read Letter in the Dixie County Advocate

A friend of mine from Dixie County is to thank for re-typing the entire text of an long open letter that appeared in the LTE section of the Dixie County Advocate this week (2A). It is beautifully articulate and wonderfully wise. It leaves the "logic" of the decision to place the monument there in a heap of smoking ruin. I'm also glad the paper allowed it to be printed.

And...so much for the, "No one from here disagrees with it!" defense:

"An Open Letter to the Citizens of Dixie County, My Birthplace"

Let us gut the old saw we all know, and stand it on its head. Let me ask not what we can do for my country, but what our county, viz., Dixie County, can do for us. Apparently this is made possible by a new twist of county commission reasoning. For I, born in Cross City and native resident there for the first 17 years of my life, have already served my country, in Tokyo and Yokohama Harbor, persuasively 9,000 miles from home.

To return to what? To return to a County Commission, a half-century later only to witness the wholesale abandonment of the U.S. Constitution, and a supposed flouting of its core principles? Do not the commission members grasp the intent of the 1^st Amendment to THE BILL OF RIGHTS of the Constitution, effecting the clear separation of church and state, or do the governing fathers of today's rural hamlet hugging the Nature Coast of Florida devise itself somehow separate and apart, and not an entity to otherwise obey our sacred foundations and way of life?

Before the county fathers would ever submit to the whim of a local major contributor, to have a semblance of the Ten Commandments monument placed literally at the courthouse steps, at its seat of power, did the commission even bother to entertain the question of its overall appropriateness, and to whether such placement would meet legal muster? Did its members plumb the learned opinions of the township's elder statesmen, or its retired education? I think not.

Back in the late Forties, my uncle served as Principal of Dixie County High School, pinchhitting as an instructor of civics, government, English and algebra. It was Uncle Marshall Davies who had as pupils the grandfathers of the kids who grew up to be today's crop of sitting commissioners. Uncle Marshall's prime intent was to see that all the children in his realm of influence would grow and learn to their educational pace, and above all become economically self-sufficient. Times and conditions were so utterly raw and hard back in those days, but he was thorough and self-motivated to exact the measure of each and every student, for that is the sole function and ambition of an educator. But now to what avail, if these children of my uncle's pupils evolved to commit today's malfeasance in elected office? Yes, malfeasance!

Another blunder and misstep of the commission is to have adopted the faulty logic of its own legal guide, the attorney advising the panel. The attorney abandoned logic, emotionally blending with the religious fervor of the crowd to tell Fox TV network that Dixie is Dixie, and the balance of the nation could go chase itself. I suspect that when this egregious abuse of judgment is said and done, that lawyer will find himself hauled before The Florida Bar and made to show cause why he should be allowed to keep his license to practice law. This stems from the fact that there is clear precedent barring such a monument in its particular location, viz., the Establishment Clause. Never in my day would I have dreamed of so callous a scenario. And here I was a half-century ago, during the military years, trying to save the country, not bury the country, as is being done in such cavalier fashion today.

This scenario, if played out, and somehow not interrupted, would see a petition filed, addressed in Federal court, and the first sitting magistrate hearing the case handing down an order mandating the effective removal of The Rock from the courthouse steps property. Should the members of the Commission self-righteously disobey, another order would be entered dispatching the United States Marshals Service, and attendant force, as deemed necessary. The commissioners would be placed in large black vans and transported to Jacksonville for detention. Should local police officials dare to intervene, they too would be stripped and transported to lockup and the lot of then cited for contempt. Google's lenses would peer from the heavens, capturing the moment, that all here is not fun and games.

This, my friends, is what you do not know, and what you should begin knowing. One simply does not set out to find himself on the muzzle end of a federal court order. And for good reason, otherwise the entire nation would splinter into chaos. A very similar situation, as relates to this case, played out just a while ago, which saw the chief justice of a state supreme court driven from office on a federal contempt citation, and finally disbarred from the practice of law itself. My Word, does not Cross City begin to get the drift of walking this thin line?

As I see it, there does exist a legal out, a plausible exit, and that too is gracious in the process. The prime mover, the major sponsor of the Big Rock project who came forward to make the
endeavor financially possible, could adopt a change of heart, and entreat the commission to reverse its efforts and remove the monolith. Mister Joe could then step in, lasso his Rock, and drag it to the far northwest quadrant of his cow pasture, for the cows to dwell upon while contemplating the Absolute Idea existing in time and space.

Within a month or two the good townsfolk would begin to savor how strangely sweeter the milk. Yes, this is the upside, and just look at the enormous amount of money the county saved in not
having to fight this legal monster, a case unwinnable on its face, a case to forever stain the legitimacy of the county, a case in effect rendered moot before it was to get off the ground. Because Mister Joe finally saw the courage to do the right thing and tacitly agree to withdraw the monument, before the authorities really noticed. But the county must go about its duty and act quickly now, if it wants to preserve its legacy.

My intent here is not to be harsh, but to be forthright.

After all, I was born 70 years ago in Cross City, less than a quarter-mile from the old courthouse's eastern steps. I and friends played as kids on and around those steps in the far distant yesteryear. I admire my little hometown, and ache for its relative simplicity and laid-back demeanor. But the way the county commission of today measures simplicity, against being downright simple, might find the two mutually exclusive. Therein lies this problem.

Page Davies
DCHS Class of 1954
Clearwater, FL

It makes me cry tears of joy. :-)

I found it interesting that in the paper's mention of the last Commission meeting, not one peep about the 10C case appeared. I've written Candace Corbin about getting a copy of the last few meetings' transcripts.

The attorney he mentioned was Joe Lander, and you can see Joe's emotive "defense" of the county's actions here on YouTube. My detailed analysis of the legal issues here, and everything I've written on this situation, including extensive local media coverage, here.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state, Politics

Letter to the Editor in the Sun

Surprise, surprise, another backwoods hick is angry that she can't use the government to push her religious views onto others. Tough titty.

Let's really separate
February 17. 2007 6:01AM

The ACLU is suing Dixie County over the Ten Commandments being placed at the courthouse. If the ACLU and the federal judges want separation of church and state, I suggest we do this separation all the way.

Since Christians don't have the right to place the Ten Commandments on property their tax dollars paid for, we Christians and our churches should be exempt from all federal, state, county and city laws and from paying any taxes. If our wishes do not count, then we should not be forced to contribute to the cause. We should be allowed to form our own laws and taxation, to be separated from government. The government should not be allowed to use our churches for voting. If separation is the desire then let's do it all the way.

The original laws of this country were founded on the Ten Commandments. If you were to take the original laws and our new laws and put them side by side, you would be hard pressed to find much resemblance.

The ACLU hates Christians and God. By our new laws and standards they should be charged with a hate crime. One day you will stand before a real Judge, and your arguments won't hold water. May God have mercy.

Beverly Sarra,
Hawthorne

How many non sequiturs can one imbecile make in one LTE? By Beverly's reasoning, if you can't use the government as a tool to advance your cause, then you aren't under that government in any way. By Beverly's reasoning, people's "wishes" matter more than inalienable rights granted by the Constitution. By Beverly's reasoning, the original laws which followed Bible teachings about slavery and burning witches and stoning homosexuals should be reinstituted. Wake up, Beverly, but it's the 21st century, and people have progressed beyond the barbaric and savage ways of your beloved Old Testament laws.

I have no problem with taking "separation all the way" -- but Beverly would, because it wouldn't equate to her getting what she wants. No, instead, churches would be treated like every other business, and they are, indeed, businesses -- they generate profits from sales and marketing and advertisements. See, tax-exemption is part of the problem, Beverly -- your churches already don't pay taxes, you numbnuts.

This sort of ignorant drivel showcases exactly the form of freedom that theocratic fascists like Beverly want -- they think that because we all pay taxes, that one sect out of us can use those taxes to promote their religious causes. Even though the entire purpose of a courthouse, or a road, is to serve the public and common good, Beverly think she has the right to use it to proselytize.

It's exactly the same "logic" (sneer quotes) as was displayed on CNN (YouTube link) when Karen Harris said,

HUNTER: Eight to 12 percent. (INAUDIBLE) They're not hurting anyone. I personally don't have a problem with an atheist. Believe or don't believe what you want. Don't impose upon my right to want to have prayer in schools, to want to say the pledge of allegiance, to want to honor my God. Don't infringe upon that right.

Whoa! You have a right to have prayer in schools? No. You have a right to pray yourself. You have a right to believe whatever you want. You don't have a right to use any government entity to push your version of your beliefs on anyone. These people are mind-numbingly stupid. And dangerous.

Beverly, you can put the 10 Commandments in your own yard. That is your right. You can hang them in every room of your house. You can walk into any public building and pray all day long, including your kids praying in their own school. How many times do you dense fucktards need it explained that your freedom to do those things voluntarily is Constitutionally guaranteed, and that the ACLU fights for Christians and their rights to those civil liberties?

And how many times must the truth be drilled into your thick skull that just as you have the right to do those things as an individual, no one has the right to use the government, or government authority, to promote their own religion? You retrograde theocrats are going through your death throes, screaming and wailing as you realize the utter failing of your own religion, manifested in empty pew syndrome and the general cultural turning away from your ancient beliefs and superstitions. Your only hope is to seize the government and use its power and money to revive and reform society to conform, forcibly, to your religious views. But we won't stand for it, and the Constitution is on our side. You lose. Thanks gods for that.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Atheism, Church-state

Dixie County Advocate Article on 10C Lawsuit

The Dixie County Advocate, the county's only newspaper (to my knowledge), has an article about the recent developments in the ACLU-filed lawsuit in their Sunday edition:

ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit Over Placement Of Ten Commandments Monument
By Terri Langford, 2/15/2007

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLU) recently filed a lawsuit at the federal courthouse in Gainesville, FL, sighting that Dixie County has violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by placing a monument, bearing the Ten Commandants on the county’s courthouse steps.

Since its placement, there has been much debate from both sides, with the majority of citizens in Dixie County in favor of keeping the monument on the courthouse steps and the majority of liberal activists from outside of the county in favor of upholding the laws of our Constitution that state there must be separation of church and state. With the lawsuit in place, the next step to take will be in the hands of the Dixie County Commission.

The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment can be summed up to the following: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

One case that is referred to often is where former Chief Justice of Alabama, Roy Moore, installed a monument of the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building in 2001. In 2003, he was ordered by a federal judge to remove the monument. Moore argued against the order, stating his right to acknowledge God. However, the courts used the separation of church and state argument that is listed in the establishment clause as grounds for removal of the monument on the government owned property. In keeping with the clause, the federal court also noted that Moore had the right to acknowledge God as a private person and to place the monument on his privately owned land.

The Dixie lawsuit is the newest case to be filed in the federal court system. In a press release issued by the ACLU, Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida stated: “Government does not have the right to tell Americans which God to worship. The Ten Commandments are an important part of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition and should be read from the pulpit of churches and synagogues – but the Constitution prohibits the government from endorsing religious messages such as this one. In addition to the commonly held secular commandments about murder, stealing, an honoring one’s mother and father, the Ten Commandments also include strictly religious statements.”

J. Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty said, “The question is not whether the Ten commandments embody the right teachings; rather the question is who is the right teacher – politicians or parents, pubic officials or religious leaders, judges or families,” Other points made in the press release were that by the erection of one version of the Ten Commandments, it sends a signal to others that they are not welcome and will be treated unfairly. Dr. Lesley Northup, Associate Dean, Honors College, FIU stated in a teleconference last week that a display like the one on the Dixie County steps does not show religious freedom, but promotes a type of religious depression. She added that all religious people should be wary of such symbols. “What hurts some of us hurts us all,” she stated.

It was asked of the panel during the teleconference, what, if any were the differences between the Alabama case and the Dixie County case? Besides the monument being outside on the courthouse steps and not inside the building; they are also looking at the phrase placed at the bottom of the monument which states, “Love God and Obey His Commandments” as an 11th Commandment.

There have been numerous local citizens who have voiced support of the monument since its placement in November 2006. The ACLU stated they were filing the lawsuit on behalf of their members, of whom they have approximately six residing in Dixie County. However their names have been kept from the public.

A copy of the lawsuit can be read online at http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Legal%20PDfs/Dixie Complaint.pdf.
More information on the ACLU can be found on their website at www.aclufl.org. [I added links]

While the monument was paid for by private citizens, it is not clear as to what the cost of fighting the ACLU lawsuit will be, however taxpayer resources are already being expended through county employee man hours. According to Dixie’s County Attorney, Leenette McMillan, as of press time, the county had not been served papers concerning the lawsuit and was not able to comment at this time. Once those papers are served, the ball will be in their court as to whether they will challenge the validity of the lawsuit or come to some agreement with regard to the monument.

Aside from some of the silly grammar mistakes (run-on sentence in 2nd paragraph, "sighting" instead of "citing", no comma after "However", "a type of religious depression" should probably be "a type of religious oppression") I was actually impressed by the article's attempt at balance. Yes, they put "liberal activists" in there, but they also did a fairly good job at paraphrasing the legal ramifications of the 1st Amendment, and admitted that the "other side" has the backing of the law: "...the majority of liberal activists from outside of the county in favor of upholding the laws of our Constitution that state there must be separation of church and state." Note she didn't write, "in favor of their interpretation of the Constitution..." or some similar exposition.

I hope that the county doesn't fight it -- I don't want to see them squander their resources on a case they'll certainly lose. What they have to remember is that even with the free legal defense, they will have to pay the plaintiff's legal costs once they lose, and that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. Put the damn thing on private property, where it belongs.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state, Politics

Letter to the Editor Published in Alligator Today

Read it below:

Letter to the Editor
Separation of church and state needed
Fri., 2/9/07
By S. DANIEL MORGAN
President, Atheist, Agnostic and Freethinking Student Association at UF

I was involved in the Dixie County courthouse monument debacle as it went from local gossip to national news: I did an appearance opposite Joey Lander on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes" on Nov. 29. I have talked behind the scenes with some people who were interested in challenging the legal status of the placement of the Ten Commandments monument at their county courthouse. Yesterday I breathed a sigh of relief as I saw that a motion had finally been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The names of the plaintiffs are being withheld for good cause - intimidation, harassment and violence are commonplace in rural communities with these sorts of cases. It takes guts to go against the grain, and I'm proud of their courage for moving this case forward. I fully expect to see that monument relegated to its proper place - private property - and none too soon. The demise of this affront to the separation of church and state is certain. If we don't fight for the freedoms we enjoy as private citizens, we will see them swallowed up by intrusions of government authority. We must write letters to newspapers and politicians to voice and defend civil liberties, or else the steady erosion of liberty will continue unabated by forces of tyranny and theocracy. All it takes for those forces to win is for us to remain silent and afraid. Thank you, courageous citizens of Dixie County, for refusing to be either.

________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state

"Adultry" Fixed on Dixie County Monument

A while back, I noted that the Dixie monument had "adultry" rather than "adultery" inscribed on it. Almost all of the news articles from the original time of the media buzz (approx. Nov. 29-Dec. 8) show this misspelling, because they used the same pictures over and over. The clearest picture, and one used a lot, is from the original Dixie County Advocate news article, and you can view the full-size image here. It's as clear as day, and carved into granite. Even yesterday's article in the Sun shows it the same way.

Today, when I read about the ACLU finally filing a challenge, (see official court document here) I went to their site, and lo and behold: it is fixed!

I decided to call Ben Barber, owner of Dixie County Monuments, and personally ask him about it. He confirmed to me that he had done the repair, and said that he repaired it about a week after it was first noticed. He said that you really can't see the repair unless you get up close and look for it, but that if you do, you will see the fix. I think he did a great job; granite is as hard as hell to work with once it's finished.

Too bad that most of the pics of the thing are testifying to their illiteracy, rather than to their religious faith.

Here's the media roundup, again:

1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28
2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30
3. Alligator -- 11/30
4. Alligator -- 12/1 (editorial)
5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1
6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02
7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con (12/2)
8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7
9. 2 More Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro (12/12), con (12/17)
10. St. Petersburg Times -- 1/3/07
11. St. Petersburg Times -- letter (con) 1/13/07 (4th letter down; response to 1/3/07 article above)
    
12. Gainesville Sun -- 2/7
13. ACLU News Release -- 2/7
    
14. Reuters (Miami) -- 2/7
    
15. Gainesville Sun -- 2/8
16. St. Petersburg Times -- 2/8
    

And HERE are all of the articles I've written on this story, as it developed, and my involvement and analysis of the situation.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state

Dixie County, Now You're F#&%*d!

There's an old song I like, especially the version by Randy Travis:

"I told you so..."

Dixie County's dumbass decision to plant their religious monument at the courthouse is now officially headed to court. The names of the plaintiffs are being withheld to protect them, and I agree with that decision; those dumbass rednecks were ready to assault me that night.

I've heard over and over the assurances from the county's residents that no one in the county objects to it. Bullshit. People were just afraid to be harassed or beaten in retaliation (you know, because of God's abounding grace). Thankfully, a few plaintiffs have the courage to see this illegal action challenged.

Although the DC Commissioners are ecstatic about having free legal representation, what those stupid people don't apparently realize is that they'll have to pay the plaintiff's rather hefty legal fees once they lose this case. I'd love to see what percentage of the county budget $100K would be. If this goes way up to a state supreme court, that number could go into the millions.

Eventually, theocrats will be bled dry from such efforts, hopefully, and stop pulling this old trick.

For those who don't know, I appeared on FoxNews regarding this issue back on Nov. 29. CLICK HERE to watch and read some preliminary comments, and HERE for my detailed commentary on the legal and political issues.

Gainesville Sun, AP, St. Petersburg Times, my media roundup
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Church-state

Rutherford County, TN, 10C Case

Another 10 Commandments case that sounds exactly like the Dixie County affair. (HT: RC)
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Atheism, Church-state

Article in the St. Petersburg Times on Dixie County 10C

Read it HERE. I haven't forgotten about Dixie County; note that I've spoken personally with the person who contacted the FFRF about their discontentment. The inside scoop is this: they are looking for friends to come together and file as co-plaintiffs. They just don't want to go it alone. Thus, it's coming, Dixie County...justice, I mean. Here's a recap of local coverage:

1. Gainesville Sun -- 11/28
2. Dixie County Advocate -- 11/30
3. Alligator -- 11/30
4. Alligator -- 12/1 (editorial)
5. FFRF Press Release -- 12/1
6. Gainesville Sun -- 12/02
7. 3 Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro, pro, con (12/2)
8. Dixie County Advocate -- 12/7
9. 2 More Letters to the Editor at the Sun -- pro (12/12), con (12/17)
10. St. Petersburg Times -- 1/1/07

The full-text of the newest article is below the fold:

It's a battle not written in stone
by Sherri Day, 1/1/07

CROSS CITY - To government officials, it was a simple request: A local business owner wanted to donate a monument of the Ten Commandments and place it on the steps of the Dixie County Courthouse.

The commissioners, all professed Christians, approved the gift and its placement outside the building in the center of town that is home to several government agencies, including the County Commission.

The monument, a chunk of black granite, went up after Thanksgiving. It stands more than 5 feet tall, weighs 6 tons and cost $20,000.

Word about the rock spread, all the way to Gainesville, leading atheists and agnostics there to contact the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They are threatening a lawsuit if the commission doesn't reverse itself and remove the monument.

There's just one problem: the foundation can't find anyone in this rural county of roughly 14,000 residents to participate in the proposed lawsuit.

Locals are unlikely to back the foundation's efforts, confirmed Shelly Cannon, who works in the courthouse.

"Mostly our big flak has been from people in big cities," Cannon said. "One guy from Tallahassee came all the way down here to tell every office that he supported it. You're going to have some non-Christians, but if people practiced it, the world would be a better place."

All the posturing on both sides has made Dixie County the latest battleground in the debate over the separation of church and state.

News crews from across the country have taken notice. In late November, Fox News' Hannity & Colmes featured a debate between the county's former attorney and a University of Florida atheist. National newspapers, including the Washington Post, have called townspeople for interviews. Supporters from all over the country, including Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington, D.C., have phoned to encourage the commissioners, commission secretaries said.

The Thomas More Law Center, a nonprofit public-interest law firm in Michigan that advocates for the religious freedom of Christians, offered to defend the commission for free if the matter winds up in court.

Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who was booted from the bench in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state courthouse rotunda, also has offered support.

He said the Dixie County conflict is much more than a Florida dispute.

"Do we take 'In God We Trust' from our money?" Moore asked. "Do we take our 'under God' from our pledge? It's about the removal of the acknowledgement of a supreme being, the Judeo-Christian God from which this nation was based, and I say 'No, we can't do that. It's wrong and it's harmful to do that.' "

Residents not keen on outsiders' opinions

The fight - if it can be called that - clearly favors the insiders. Situated about 50 miles west of Gainesville, Dixie County has about 14,000 residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. It has four traffic lights, and its primary employers are timber companies and corrections facilities. There are at least 20 churches. On Sundays, locally owned restaurants and liquor stores close up shop.

Residents don't take kindly to outsiders telling them what to do.

"I'm a devout Florida State fan," said Hoyt "Buddy" Lamb, a county commissioner and faithful Baptist. "When I go to Gainesville, I see this Gator logo displayed on the street corners and all. But I hadn't went over there and said, 'That offends me. I want them removed because I'm a devout Seminole fan.' I don't think it's my business to go over there and tell them to do that any more than it is their business to come here and tell us what to do."

The foundation's supporters, who number 8,000 atheists and agnostics nationwide and 436 in Florida, say that allowing the Ten Commandments to remain on the courthouse steps violates the First Amendment. They also say commissioners are ignoring recent court rulings that prohibit such displays.

"I think it may take a while" to find a local party to the lawsuit, acknowledged Annie Laurie Gaylor, the co-president of the Madison, Wis., foundation, which works to keep religion out of government. "We have a lot of members in Florida. We just don't happen to have anybody in Dixie County."

The lack of a suitable plaintiff in Dixie County disappoints the group's supporters.

"If I lived there, I wouldn't hesitate to put my name as a plaintiff," said Jeff Kirk, 55, a foundation member who lives near Gainesville. "I don't understand why they don't put their monument on private property or church property."

Jeffrey Levine, a dental ceramist from Cape Coral, e-mailed the foundation after he heard about the Dixie County monument on television.

"It just galls me that religious people in this country have to smear their religious glands' secretions all over everything in the public rather than leaving the public institutions religion-neutral," said Levine, 61. "The government should not be endorsing anything to do with religion. I don't even like the religious suggestions on our dollar bills."

Though relatively quiet, there are voices of discontent in Dixie County.

"I'm Native American," Deborah Wright, 42, an aspiring prison guard said last month while looking at the monument. "Are they going to put my Native American Ten Commandments up there? They're only representing one, and we are many."

Allen Cook, a Wiccan who dropped by the courthouse to take a look at the monument, agreed.

"I don't know why they put it up," said Cook, 20, surrounded by a group of his Wiccan friends. "Nobody in Dixie County follows them anyway."

Driving by the courthouse, the Rev. Tommy Wayne Liles saw the youths, one of whom wore a T-shirt decrying false and feeble gods, and stopped.

"God's people need to stand up and be heard," said Liles, his voice booming in the courthouse hallways. "They need to let their voices be heard that they do stand for God."

Monument opponents aren't giving up

So far, it appears to be working. The commission, at least, has its mind set in stone.

"It's a great thing," said Commission Chairman James T. Valentine, a lifelong Dixie County resident and palm tree harvester.

The 59-year-old wears a gold cross pin on his lapel and testifies that he was healed from paralysis at 11 years old by a group of hard-praying Pentecostals. "I believe in the Ten Commandments. I stand for it. It didn't cost the county a dime."

Foundation leaders say they intend to keep trying.

Recently, they got a call from a Dixie County resident who refused to join the lawsuit but called to express support.

"We haven't given up," Gaylor said. "At this time of year, people are so busy. Lawsuits can sometimes take a long time to file. In terms of putting on a lawsuit, this is nothing."

Times researcher Cathy Wos contributed to this report. Sherri Day can be reached at 813-226-3405 or sday@sptimes.com

Dixie County
Where: 55 miles west of Gainesville
Population: 13,827
Churches: About 20
Faith: Majority evangelical Christian
Largest Denomination : Southern Baptist
Source: The U.S. Census Bureau and the Association of Religion Data Archives
[Last modified January 3, 2007, 00:56:34]

_____
Hopefully we all know who that rotten atheist on Hannity & Colmes was ;-)
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state

Clarification: Details on My Position re 10C vs. "Under God" et al

Although I summarized some of the major pieces of misinformation from the interview already, I wanted to provide details for what I said and what I meant; especially regarding the rationale behind why I said, "No," to Sean's inquiry about removing all mentions of "God" from government-related items/buildings/etc.

It should've been obvious to anyone with half a brain that Sean Hannity didn't want to stick to the legal details of why this action by the Dixie County Board of Commissioners (DCBOC) was unconstitutional. All Sean wanted to do was pretend I had been to that place before, or that I had been actively soliciting plaintiffs, and he wanted to focus on the question of how far I thought church-state separation should be taken. The reason he didn't want to stick to those details, and the reason that attorney Joey Lander sure as hell didn't either, is because they both knew that the law was clearly against them.

For the past 40 years, SCOTUS has fairly consistently used one metric in hearing establishment-related cases -- the Lemon Test. The Establishment Clause is understood by the application of its three "prongs" to any particular action by the government:

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with religion.

The DCBOC's action fails the test on obvious grounds, and by recent precedents in Alabama, Kentucky and Texas. Those who disagree typically cite some aspect of "legitimate secular purpose" (1) such as history and/or the "legal basis" of the 10C, which they then argue mitigates (2) and (3) as well. Admittedly, the Court left these rules broad and not narrow, for good reason. However, if we find that some case X was decided in high appellate court to fail the Lemon Test, it is logically straightforward that any case with circumstances identical to, or nearly identical to, that of X would fail the test as well.

Since the Roy Moore case occurred under in the same district as ours (the 11th Federal Circuit), it is quite humorous to believe that the ruling in this case would be qualitatively different. U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson ruled that the monument created, "a religious sanctuary within the walls of a courthouse". I fail to see why creating that same atmosphere just beside the front door [in the DCBOC case] is legally significant. See the original complaint against Moore et al., and read Judge Henderson's affirmation of the lower court's ruling. SCOTUS denied to stay the case.

For more background, see AL, KY and TX. For some good commentary related to the KY and TX SCOTUS rulings, and their impingement on future actions, see here, here and here.

The "historic/legal value" argument is fallacious along many grounds: i) The laws of the Hebrews were co-opted from the laws of various pre-Hebraic peoples, including the Sumerians and Egyptians; ii) the first four of the 10C have absolutely no basis in American law, aside from antiquated "Blue Laws" relating to the 4C; iii) any argument that presupposes the historicity of the story in the Bible is begging the question and contradicts mountains of solid archaeological and literary scholarship, which indicate the mythical status of the Exodus and Moses.

As such, given (i), should we post Hammurabi's codes? Should we post the dictates of the Pharaohs? Since the ancient Hebrews had a theocracy and we have a Constitutional Republic, should we not post Plato's Republic? What about the Roman laws that originated then and there, and find themselves still existing unmodified now and here?

• What sort of metric do we use to determine the causal efficacy of some historic influence or event, in order to objectively argue that it is sufficient to post a monument about it on government property, irrespective of religious (or irreligious) context?

For more legal and philosophical arguments against the 10C on government property, see here and here.

Now, moving to the question of generic "God" references, allow me to quote what I said in (12):

I have no legal standing, nor real problem with generic "God" references, and while I wish the government would stay completely God-neutral, I would happily settle for it being religion-neutral. I would never bring a suit to remove "In God We Trust" or "Under God", although I disagree with the motives of putting them on our currency after the Civil War, and in our pledge during the Red Scare, respectively. Our Founders chose a secular motto for a good reason -- e pluribus unum.

Given everything I've outlined above, what I have tried to argue is that current high court precedents concerning Establishment Clause-related cases renders posting new 10C monuments unconstitutional. That said, challenging the status of old monuments, and challenging the status of religious references in old documents and inscribed on old buildings, is a precarious situation, and one with little or no high appellate court precedent(s).

Sometimes the argument is advanced that if we oppose new encroachments on the 1st Amendment, that we must go after all old ones. It is often invoked that on SCOTUS' own East Pediment is inscribed a figure of Moses, although he stands beside Solon and Confucius. This sort of setting is obviously pluralistic, and revolves around the history of law and civilization (with the men themselves focused on as lawgivers, which renders it directly secular) -- the commandments themselves are not visible. Therefore, it is a particularly bad, though oft-cited, attempt to find a link between church and state that could be challenged on Establishment Clause grounds. However, there are other, not-so-secular displays, and usages in historic documents, which could fail the Lemon Test, if applied. State governments are especially likely to contain explicit references to Christianity.

Hannity started down this road, asking me if I wanted to take all references of God from all government and public media and property. In order to avoid getting bogged down in the details, which are critical to give this matter the attention it deserves, I simply retorted, "No." What Hannity was leading to was exactly where Lander took it, when he swallowed Hannity's bait and declaimed, "It’s an aspect of trying to remove God from our lives altogether." This red herring serves to light a fire under the ass of drooling sycophants of theocratic arguments, but little else.

First, I would argue that the sort of "ceremonial Deistic" invocations of "God", including that on our coins and pledge, do not establish religion, per se, although they certainly are biased towards religion over non-religion, theism over atheism. Ergo, I think that these cases are legally weak, as well as generally unimportant. While I would love to see the Pledge restored to its pre-1954 status, and the motto returned to e pluribus unum, I think that additional law needs to be passed by Congress to clarify the tenuous boundary along Establishment lines. With historical context in mind, the state constitutions that so often bear references to God and Christianity can be understood very well in the federalist sense. Until the 14th Amendment, consolidation and incorporation of the states under the Constitution was not clearly explicated. Further, many of the states had simply revised earlier versions of documents that far pre-dated the 1st Amendment.

Second, I would argue that we need to pick our battles. What people did 200 or even 50 years ago has little bearing on the current direction of the courts and politics. I think it vital to keep our country moving in the direction of religious freedom for citizens, and religious neutrality for their government. To do this will require lots of attention to lots of broaches of the wall of separation: current, ongoing sorts of cases. Why focus our attention and energies towards broaches that are decades or centuries old?

Third, it was Congress that changed the pledge, and the national motto. It should be Congress that revises them again. Try not to laugh. I know, I know, it won't happen anytime soon, and perhaps not even within my own lifetime. But recognize that "the only constant is change," and that the people who founded our country didn't foresee their motto being switched out for another. In the same way, I can guarantee you that the future holds change for the current revisions. Hopefully, the new edits will be in the direction of religious freedom and neutrality, and not against them. If you are aware of statistical data, most of the young adults in our country are quite different in their perspective on freedom of religion than their "Red Scare"-infected parents and grandparents. As I pointed out before, Christians have been wringing their hands over the "loss" of the new generation from the Church. I think that's a trend that's unlikely to reverse anytime soon. And I think that bodes well for freedom of religion, and bodes ill for the Religious Right and their theocratic policies.

Some people have asked where I got the figure for my citing "38 other historic monuments" in the TX case:

The physical setting of the monument, moreover, suggests little or nothing of the sacred. See Appendix A, infra. The monument sits in a large park containing 17 monuments and 21 historical markers, all designed to illustrate the "ideals" of those who settled in Texas and of those who have lived there since that time. Tex. H. Con. Res. 38, 77th Leg. (2001); see Appendix B, infra. The setting does not readily lend itself to meditation or any other religious activity. But it does provide a context of history and moral ideals. It (together with the display's inscription about its origin) communicates to visitors that the State sought to reflect moral principles, illustrating a relation between ethics and law that the State's citizens, historically speaking, have endorsed. That is to say, the context suggests that the State intended the display's moral message--an illustrative message reflecting the historical "ideals" of Texans--to predominate.

(caselaw of the TX SCOTUS ruling in Van Orden v. Perry)

I went in prepared to present an argument, one which I was not allowed to present. It is a no-brainer that my argument would've been on the relevant issue and firmly based on stare decisis from the recent precedents. This would bode poorly for anyone trying to argue against me in a case like this. And that's why it wasn't allowed.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Church-state