In California, the First Amendment is subordinate to the whims of the judges.  The Associated Press reports:

California’s highest court on Monday barred doctors from invoking their religious beliefs as a reason to deny treatment to gays and lesbians, ruling that state law prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination extends to the medical profession.

What "treatment" was denied?  How was care withheld, as the AP headline claims?

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which "imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations."

In the lawsuit that led to the ruling, Guadalupe Benitez, 36, of Oceanside said that the doctors treated her with fertility drugs and instructed her how to inseminate herself at home but told her their beliefs prevented them from inseminating her. One of the doctors referred her to another fertility specialist without moral objections, and Benitez has since given birth to three children.

Nevertheless, Benitez in 2001 sued the Vista-based North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group. She and her lawyers successfully argued that a state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation applies to doctors.

So what we’re really talking about here is an elective procedure, not "care" nor "treatment" of some condition.  And the doctors did everything up to the point where their religious convictions wouldn’t let them continue.  Even then, they instructed Benitez how to do it herself. 

A detail you won’t find here but is brought up in the WorldNetDaily coverage, the case was dismissed when it was originally brought, but liberal Californians can be certain that, no matter the obstacles, their Supreme Court can be counted on to come through. 

But don’t doctors have constitutional rights, too?  Well the California Medial Association used to think so, but they changed their tune "after receiving a barrage of criticism from the gay-rights community."  We have the bullying tactics of the "tolerant" Left connect with the political correctness of the medical community, with the result being a trampling of the Constitution. 

This is what passes for the imprudent "jurisprudence" we find on the Left Coast.  This almost calls for a Constitutional amendment, except we already have one and it doesn’t seem to be working. 

Technorati Tags: California Supreme Court, Constitution, homosexuality, First Amendment, religious rights, Douglas Fenton, Christine Brody, Guadalupe Benitez

The military and its use in defending the country are one of the powers expressly enumerated in our Constitution.  Unlike other responsibilities that some would like to give to it (e.g. health care, as I’ve discussed here before), this particular duty is spelled out quite clearly.  Our founding fathers, in attempting to limit the federal government’s powers while leaving the rest to the states or the people, made sure that this power was indeed a federal issue.  Defense of its citizens and interests is a proper role of government.

Over time, aspects of the military have changed, but none more controversial than its makeup.  When a racially-integrated military was suggested, initial reactions against it were mostly due to racial prejudice than anything else, either on the part of the person reacting or on the assumption that such prejudice existed in the ranks.  As racial views changed, that integration became far easier.

Over time, another type of integration took place; that of including women in combat.  The concept was not entirely new (it goes back to ancient times), but in the US, while the controversy was heated in earlier decades, as women were included more and more the issue isn’t considered that big a deal anymore, on par with racial integration.  However, I think that recent events should give us pause to consider the question again.

There have always been the straw arguments that proponents of women in combat have attributed to the other side that either were never actually presented or were extreme minority opinions.  One of those was that women weren’t as patriotic as men or willing to die for freedom.  This was typically presented as the claim that women were just as patriotic, with the implication that the other side didn’t think so. 

However, there are a number of arguments against women in combat that represent real physical and psychological concerns, and not always on the part of the women themselves.  Wikipedia presents some of these arguments, including physical differences and the reaction of men to wounded women.  The tradition and seeming instinct of protecting women plays into this.  The cry, "Women and children first", was never taken to be a call to arms.  The Wikipedia article notes, regarding experiments with women in integrated units in the Israeli Defense Force:

The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

Say what you will about the male and the protection instinct, it’s real and it’s there (and it’s not a bad thing).

Another issue has been that of romantic relationship within the unit, causing a couple to perhaps become more concerned about each other than the remainder of the unit, or a love triangle which would create less concern between some.  Unit cohesion is paramount in combat, and adding this dimension can easily cancel out any other gains.  (Incidentally, this is, at least to me, the main reason to be against gays in the military.) 

It’s this sexual angle to the inclusion of women that can be the most destructive.  And to some, it can be far worse than an issue with a jilted lover.

Read the rest of this entry

I’m currently on vacation in Ithaca, NY. My dad’s father, my dad, his 2 brothers, and a whole host of family in-laws and friends have purchases homes here and retired to the beautiful central New York region. Ithaca is home to Cornell University and Ithaca College, and over the years students from those schools essentially paid for the homes while they rented them during the school year. We would take our 3 weeks vacation here every year to mow the lawn (5 feet high by summer; students don’t typically mow lawns) and see our cousins. Because the brothers and their sister tried to coordinate vacations, we got to know our first cousins very well, as well as some second cousins and others of various once-removed or twice-removed situations.

Ithaca lives up to the stereotype of a very liberal college town, politically speaking. Obama will carry this town with greater than 95% of the vote. For a very long time, large, “big box” stores — Wal-Mart, Kohl’s, Home Depot, for examples — were kept out of town so as not to ruin the local town charm. The problem was, suburbs just outside the town were quite accepting of these stores, and they saw their tax revenues jump as the stores came in, while Ithaca found itself in a bit of a crisis. Money came in to the town, but it flowed out to the mall just on the other side of the town line or in burgs 20-30 minutes away. In the end, the “CAVE” people (liberal folks who were labeled “Citizens Against Virtually Everything”) had to relent to the fiscal realities. Ithaca now has a thriving shopping area for those that want the big stores, and after 5 or so years it still has The Commons where you can stroll around to find that corner bookstore.

What the CAVE people were worried about didn’t really happen, or at least not nearly to the extent that they predicted. The Meadow Court and the Grayhaven motels, longtime residents of Ithaca, have survived the introduction of the Hampton Inn chain. The Grayhaven caters to dog owners, one of the ways they stay competitive; defining their market. The local Wicks Lumber, which has a small hardware store attached, is still in business, even with Home Depot less than 2 miles away. The “mom & pop” establishments are essentially still here. The free market didn’t kill them off, and the CAVE people have grudgingly accepted it. (Well, some were simply out-voted. Acceptance isn’t always a given.)

In the end, capitalism worked. People got more choices, and the existing businesses survived, either by defining their markets, trading on their nostalgic or hometown quality, or enjoying customer loyalty going back decades. In Ithaca, both kinds of consumers — for the large and small businesses — exist, and businesses of both types can exist, side-by-side, in a capitalist society.

Read the rest of this entry

Shire Network News #137 has been released. The feature interview is with Guy Earle, who committed the unpardonable sin of having a go at some hecklers at a show in Vancouver who were members of a protected class. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to "Consider This!"

This is a "Next Generation" update; stories that cover what’s going on in the world regarding the children, how they’re being brought up, brought down, pampered and hampered. 

We start with a doctor in Boston, Massachusetts that is prepping children as young as 7 for…a sex change.  Dr. Norman Spack, a pediatrician at Boston’s Children’s Hospital is taking in clients to give them drugs that delay the onset of puberty so these kids can decide what gender they really want to be.  So now, we’re doing with drugs what they used to do to boys in the middle ages in order to keep their high-pitched voices for the choir.  Only now, it’s "for the children".

Spack says that the permanent infertility is worth the trade-off, because, as he says, these kinds of kids are deeply troubled and have a high level of suicide attempts.  OK, so now, instead of addressing this deep troubling, we indulge their confusion?  Drug addicts are deeply troubled, too.  I suppose the next thing is giving them free needles and free drugs.  Oh, wait, they’re already doing that, especially in Canada.  Well, then, it’s be like giving cutters, those who inflict pain on themselves, clean razor blades.  Ah, nope, already been proposed by the Royal College of Nursing.  OK, something that even liberals would…ah ha, got it!  It’s like giving cigarette smokers free cigarettes!  They may not be as deeply troubled, but many do die early from the addiction, and as liberals like to remind us, even it saves just one life, it’s worth it.

Anyway, there are number of other doctors at prominent hospitals against it, so we have ways to go on this front.  Stay tuned.

In other news, the National Children’s Bureau in Britain has issued guidelines for nursery workers to be on the lookout for racist behavior in children.  This include things like a 3-year-old turning up their noses at unfamiliar foreign food.  I’m sorry, but when my kids were younger, they all had a penchant for saying "yuk" to unfamiliar food of any sort, foreign or not.  I don’t think they could tell what was domestic and what wasn’t.  Three-year-olds don’t ask, "Is that an imported cheese?  I’m sorry, but I only buy American; Wisconsin, specifically."  Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents from this 366-page guide as possible.  The guide says, "Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case."  Heh, indeed.  It means more money for this government program to strain at gnats with.

Moving over to Germany, a new bill, which has the backing of dozens of big-time German politicians, would lower the voting age…to 0.  Babies could voice their opinions on the economy, and toddlers could weigh in on their education.  If you want to pass a bill on military deployment, you’ll have to get that crucial 3-10 year-old demographic on your side.  Again, not likely to happen soon — they tried before as recently as 3 years ago — but as with other efforts "for the children" and against disenfranchisement, it’s not dead yet.

And finally, from Pakistan, we have some good news and some bad news.  The good news is that 2000 women took a group vow last Wednesday.  They raised their voices in unity.  "I am woman, here me roar."  The bad news is that these burqa-clad Islamic women all vowed to raise their children to be Jihadis. 

Well it could be worse.  It could be a bunch of gender-confused kids going out to vote to send themselves out to holy war against people who call them "racist" for saying "yuk" to pork.

Consider that.  (Well, no.  Don’t.)

Technorati Tags: podcast, Shire Network News, children, Dr. Norman Spack, Boston Children’s Hospital, National Children’s Bureau, Britain, racism, Germany, Pakistan, jihad

Shire Network News #136 has been released. The feature interview is with Dr. Mordechai Kedar, of the Arabic Department of Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv. While appearing recently on Al Jazeera talking about building apartments in Jerusalem, he decided not to take the role of a piñata as expected by the show’s host. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to "Consider This!"

With all due respect to the host of this show, who comes from the land we broke away from 232 years ago, I’m going to touch a bit on Independence Day in these United States. 

This quote from John Quincy Adams was brought to my attention recently.  He was writing to his wife Abigail about how he thought Independence Day would be celebrated in the years to come.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.

Well, we seem to have the pomp and parade, fireworks and barbeques down pat.  Some sporting events, like Atlanta’s Peachtree Road Race, are exclusively on July 4th.  But it’s this clinginess to guns and religion that one US presidential candidate would, no doubt, find beneath him.  Thanks to the Heller Supreme Court decision, it now appears that individuals can celebrate Independence Day, not just "well-regulated militias".

In the intervening years since Adams’ prediction, and indeed hope, America has been there to fight for freedom in other places as well.  Imagine that; a country strong enough and with the right frame of mind to consider more than just its own well-being, but the well-being of other nations.  The American "empire", if you want to call it that, has been unlike any other.  Instead of entering a country and annexing it or taking it over, we come in, get rid of the bad guys, and, instead of installing our own government in perpetuity, we install voting booths.  Granted, it’s not always been that way, and we have certainly made our share of mistakes, no doubt.  But on balance, compared to other nations of our size and strength throughout history, I believe we’ve been an overall force for good and liberty in the world. 

And, quite notably, very often with our former enemy, England, by our side.  If our Founding Father’s had been told that someday the US and the UK would be BFFs, they’d ROFL.  Well, if they did any text messaging.

And to sound so utterly un-PC — something which we major in on Shire Network News — I believe we are this force for good precisely because we cling to our guns and our religion.  The guns represent individual liberty and individual rights.  They show that we are willing to fight for our ourselves and for what we believe in; both individually and as a nation. 

But this nation also clings to its religion, and while there is the freedom to practice any or no religion, much of our foundational ideas came from Judeo-Christian principles, including, by the way, that religious freedom, as well as concern for others as much as oneself.  Clinging just to guns, without that religious component, would have made us no different than the Romans or the Huns or the Nazis.  But we have also gone into Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, western Europe, and yes, even Vietnam, with the purpose of holding back oppression in other countries.  We could just hunker down behind our borders, clinging to our guns, but there is more to being a good neighbor that just waiting for the bad guys to show up here.  No, we can’t police the world, that much is certain.  But there are things we can do. 

Again, it is true that we’ve not always kept those two things in their proper proportions, sometimes leaning more on the guns that we should.  But we do eventually return.

Thomas Jefferson was a guy that I would have some religious disagreements with.  But there is a quote from him on one of the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC that I can buy into and, I think, brings this all together.  So, consider this:

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

Happy Independence Day, all you Americans.  Cling to your guns if you will, but cling tighter to your religion.  Consider that.

Technorati Tags: podcast, Shire Network News, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, cling to guns and religion

While other Christian groups and denominations may have doctrinal issues with the Latter-day Saints, they do line up on a number of political issues.

SALT LAKE CITY – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is asking California members to join the effort to amend that state’s constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

A letter sent to Mormon bishops and signed by church president Thomas S. Monson and his two top counselors calls on Mormons to donate "means and time" to the ballot measure. A note on the letter dated June 20 says it should be read during church services on June 29, but the letter was published Saturday on several Web sites.

Church spokesman Scott Trotter said Monday that the letter was authentic. He declined further comment, saying the letter explains the church’s reasons for getting involved.

The LDS church will work with a coalition of churches and other conservative groups that put the California Marriage Protection Act on the Nov. 4 ballot to assure its passage, the letter states.

In May, California’s Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying gays could not be denied marriage licenses.

"The church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children," the four-paragraph letter states.

Mormons say they have 750,000 member in California, who could have a big impact.

What’s not clear in all of this, regardless of the addition of the Mormons to the fray, is how California will deal with the genie they’ve already let out of the bottle; what to do with marriage licenses that the amendment would directly affect.  This quandary, brought to you by Judicial Activism(tm), is the result of liberals in government not letting the legislative process do its work and trying to usurp it.  Some complained here in Georgia that the constitutional amendment that passed here was unnecessary since we already had a law against same-sex marriage.  The California situation is a prime object lesson for why that argument was, at least, disingenuous. 

Technorati Tags: California, Latter-Day Saints, Mormons, same-sex marriage

I looked at the “charitability” of conservatives and liberals when Arthur Brooks came out with his study in 2006. He noted that conservatives were more charitable with their time and money than liberals.

Today we have a piece about multiple polling groups finding a correlation between the political spectrum and the honesty spectrum. But before I get to the data, I want to address the issue I have when I say “I hate polls”, which I’ve said quite a lot.

I’ve covered this a bit before, but it bears repeating. When we poll people on topics that they have little to no experience in, the poll is meaningless; no more than, as SCO contributor Mark Olson calls them, a cricket race. “Consumer confidence” numbers are as much (or more) a measure of economic news reporting as they are about how a person feels (itself, an ephemeral measurement). “Who would you vote for”, on the other hand, is certainly something each person can know about themselves for sure. Now, that may change over time, but no one else knows you better than you at this moment. It’s not a good measure of who you’ll vote for 6 months from now, but it’s accurate enough for the here and now, much more so than deciding how the economy is going based on feelings.

With that out of the way, on to the results.

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as “very liberal” said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are “very conservative.” When Pew Research asked whether it was “morally wrong” to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

(Maybe that’s why liberals are all for tax increases. They figure the conservatives will do most of the paying.)

Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: “You lose your job. Your friend’s company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?”

Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.

When the World Values Survey asked a similar question, the results were largely the same: Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn’t deserve.

The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.

And on the article goes, with more and more examples in the same vein. Buy why is this? Well, this is an opinion piece (because the MSM would never touch this with a 10-kilometer pole), so the writer, Peter Schweizer, a Hoover Institution fellow and author of a new book on this subject, actually does some analysis and gives us his take, but based on data, not just out of thin air.

Now, I’m not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply being more honest about their dishonesty.

However attractive this explanation might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be less forthcoming than other groups.

The honesty gap is also not a result of “bad people” becoming liberals and “good people” becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.

Ideas, indeed. Post-modern deconstruction of traditional values did not originate from conservatives. And this is even more important, considering what year it is.

Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate “doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.”

Technorati Tags: honest, conservatives, liberals, polls

The California State Supreme Court decided yesterday that the millennia-old understanding of what marriage is, isn’t.

California’s Supreme Court quashed a ban on gay marriage in a historic ruling here Thursday, effectively leaving same-sex couples in America’s most populous state free to tie the knot.

In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.

“Limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute,” California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

When the debate on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage was in full swing here in Georgia, those against the measure argued that we already had a law in Georgia making same-sex marriage illegal. They said that, therefore, we didn’t need to change the constitution. But the Left in this country has decided to use the judiciary to do an end-run around when they generally can’t get past the people or their representatives, and then they complain when they’re met on that battlefield.

The California situation is a bit more convoluted. The article gives us that history.

Thursday’s ruling came after a long-running legal battle that erupted in 2000 when California voters approved a law declaring that only marriages between men and women could be legally recognized.

In February 2004, the city of San Francisco defied state law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that existing laws were illegal because they violated equal rights legislation.

A court later halted the issuance of licenses and declared that same-sex marriages that took place during this period were void.

However, San Francisco and civil rights activists waged a legal case arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional and that the law should be struck down.

In 2005 the San Francisco Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that there was no justification for refusing to allow marriages.

But the decision was overturned in 2006 by the California Court of Appeal, which ruled in a 2-1 decision that the state’s desire to “carry out the expressed wishes of a majority” was sufficient to preserve the existing law.

California lawmakers have also voted in favor of gay marriage but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said that the matter is for the state’s court system to decide on.

So in summary; the people said they didn’t want same-sex marriage, their alleged “representatives” decided they did want it, the governor stopped it, tossed it to the judiciary, and the judiciary ruled successively for it, against it, and now for it again.

And they’re calling this potentially historic.

Legal analysts say Thursday’s court ruling could have wide-ranging implications for other US states, noting the California Supreme Court’s history of landmark rulings.

Sorry, but this highly politicized process doesn’t sound like any sort of resounding history. Leon Wolf at Redstate picked out the money quote from the decision, and finds that the court didn’t really rule on constitutional grounds at all!

And, in fact, it ain’t over yet. Over a million signatures have already been collected to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. If this gets on the ballot, given the voting history, it’s sure to pass. Expect histrionics from opponents.

And remember what this issue did in 2004 for George W. Bush. It brought voters out in droves to vote on this issue, and while there were in the booth, most pulled the lever for Bush. Could this put California in play for McCain?

Technorati Tags: California, homosexuality, same-sex marriage, California State Supreme Court, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Georgia, constitutional amendment, George W. Bush, John McCain

When he simply doesn’t want to be.  Dealing with people who have it in their heads that they really should’ve been the other gender is becoming less shocking in our culture these days.  The next step, however, is being taken in Philadelphia.

For school officials in Haverford Township, the challenge was daunting: What do you do when a 9-year-old student, with the full support of his parents, decides that he is no longer a boy and instead is a girl?

I’m wondering how many other life-altering decisions these parents have allowed this third-grader to make.

The government schools are more than willing to be codependent in this matter.

Parents of a third-grade student at Chatham Park Elementary School approached the administration on April 16 to ask for help in making a "social transition" for their child.

The Haverford School District consulted experts on transgender children, then sent letters to parents advising them that the guidance counselor would meet with the school’s 100 third-grade students to explain why their classmate would now wear girls’ clothes and be called by a girl’s name.

Some parents are, as one might expect, upset that the school is requiring that everybody else’s third graders now will receive this specific kind of sexuality training at this young age.  And they sprung this information on the parents at the very last minute.

"Why is the school introducing this subject to 8- and 9-year-olds?" wrote the parent who started the blog thread, which had been viewed more than 3,000 times as of yesterday. "Why were we not notified sooner. We received the letter today, the discussion at school is tomorrow."

This is not going to be very politically correct of me, but the group most in need of counseling at this point is the boy and his parents, not the rest of the 3rd grade.  This is not like complaining that you think your hair’s too curly or your nose is crooked.  This is indeed life altering, and allowing a 9-year-old to make this change seems like a huge mistake.  Fortunately, surgery is not involved, but changing fundamental identities at this point does not sound wise.

This also says something about our culture, that younger and younger children are, somehow, coming up with this idea and getting their parents to go along with it, whether those parents come along easily or kicking and screaming.  Something tells me that the Dr. Spock generation is less likely to put up a fight.

Technorati Tags: transgender, Philadelphia, Haverford School District, sexuality

The purpose of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been eroded and molded to fit 21st century liberal sensibilities; that is to say, to take it as much out of the public square as possible.  When Thomas Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists, he was responding to a specific question — government interfering with or establishing a religion — and he gave a specific answer.

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Basically, the government will not try to take away man’s natural right of conscience.  It’s the coercion factor that was at issue.  An established religion would require allegiance to the state church for all public servants. 

But no matter how much you want to mangle this straightforward concept, did it really mean to abolish this?

East Brunswick High School football coach Marcus Borden, who said he is fighting for his peers nationwide, is expected to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Tuesday’s federal appeals court ruling that prohibits him from participating in team prayer.

The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia unanimously reversed a July 2006 lower-court ruling that permitted Borden, through his lawsuit against the East Brunswick Board of Education, to silently bow his head or "take a knee" with players as a sign of secular respect for student-led team prayer.

The plaintiffs, represented by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, say respect is indeed the issue.

"The ruling underscores that school district employees, including football coaches, have to obey the establishment clause and have to respect the religious rights of students," said Richard B. Katskee, assistant legal director for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which represented the school board in its appeal of U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh’s ruling.

Respecting the fact that they were praying, then, is somehow a disrespect of their religious rights?  And what of the rights of the coach?  Does he have to check them at the locker room door?  Note that we’re not talking about him bringing a Bible or leading the prayers; he’s just in the room when the students pray and takes the same position as they do. 

The judges opinions in this case are just as tortured as the logic used to misread the First Amendment. 

Read the rest of this entry