About Me

Name: Mr. H
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

My response to Judge Hamilton's ruling

Posted by Mr. H on Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:18:29 PM
Thanks to the miracle that is the Google cache, here is the response to Judge Hamilton's decision about prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that I posted on the web forum of the Indianapolis Star on December 29, 2005.
------
First of all, let me offer myself to Speaker Bosma as the first volunteer to test Judge Hamilton's willingness to enforce his order. I believe the judge will find himself unable to enforce it for several reasons.

First of all, there are serious separation of powers conflicts here. For a federal court to interject itself in the customs of a state legislature seems to me a violation of the 10th Amendment. The Indiana House is not making a law concerning the prayer; it is a custom that some, after nearly 200 years of statehood, have seen cause to take offense at. For those of you saying that the 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment apply to the states, I say read the text of the 14th Amendment again. Section one deals with states not making laws abridging the rights of citizens. A custom of the Indiana House of Representatives is hardly a law.

Second, any private citizen, even if invited to speak by a government entity, has 1st and 9th Amendment rights that this decision seeks to curtail. The argument that the invitation to speak turns the prayer into government speech is unfounded; no citizen gives up their 1st Amendment rights when they step behind a podium. The argument that a sectarian prayer in a government meeting is an establishment of religion is a stretch at best.

Third, Judge Hamilton has placed himself above the basis of our common law system and totally ignored precedent and tradition. When the first act of the United States Congress was to establish a chaplain, which the Supreme Court has upheld, why is there an issue when a private citizen makes a prayer. The prayers offered in the US Congress have certainly not been "generic" all these years. How many years has the Indiana House had this tradition of opening with prayer? Again, ignored.

Fourth, by practically singling-out Christian prayers, this decision deserves to be tossed out for the same reason that Judge Hamilton claims supports his decision: the 1st Amendment. Every civil libertarian can cite the so-called "Establishment Clause," but totally ignores the second part: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By denying a Christian the right to pray in his or her own way, that free exercise is being trampled.

Finally, let me say that leading a hymn after the prayer such as the pastor that is most often cited as the reason for this suit did is going beyond the invitation to pray and is inappropriate in my view. But whatever happened to solving problems without resorting to the courts? If you don't feel comfortable being there before a prayer, step outside.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

In Whose Name?

Posted by Mr. H on Thursday, September 21, 2006 12:12:28 PM
On the topic of my last post about the right to not be offended by the speech of others is the case pending before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on the right to pray in the Indiana Statehouse.

This sillyness was brought back to my attention in reading this letter to the editor in the Indianapolis Star today. Once again I decry the horrible lack of civics education in our school systems today.  I am personally offended by the speech that this person used in her letter, but in no way does that limit her free speech rights. This "right to not be offended" that courts around the country are inventing is one of the major things threatening this country.

I wrote a lengthy response when Judge Hamilton made his decision about this case and how it was a violation of the 1st, 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments as well as the separation of powers. I saved it on the computer somewhere and will post it here as soon as I can find it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Does This Offend You?

Posted by Mr. H on Monday, September 11, 2006 12:19:03 PM
Something I've wanted to write about for a long time in a public forum is the right to free speech we enjoy under the First Amendment to our Constitution and the limitations that some seek to impose on it. What used to be the most sacrosanct part of our government's founding document has been continually under attack from those in this country who want to avoid being offended by someone else's speech.

Let's start with what I feel is the most obvious offender here, sadly written into law and stupefyingly approved by our Supreme Court: the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. I, like many others, like to call this law the "Incumbent Protection Act," because of the disadvantages it gives to the opponents of office incumbents. Whether you agree with the premise that there is too much money in political campaigning or not, this law was a horrible way to solve it. Political speech was the type of speech designed to be most protected by the First Amendment, and now political groups not even affiliated with a party or candidate have been silenced due to the 60-day "gag" on political advertising before an election.

Then there are speech codes. Where on earth did some people get the idea that they have the right to not be offended by what others do and say? I am forced to put up with listening to people with whom I disagree on a regular basis, and I would never think of forcing them to be silent just because I do not want to hear it. Again, the First Amendment was written to protect speech for just that reason. As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Mommy is a Democrat

Posted by Mr. H on Thursday, September 07, 2006 5:34:10 PM
My hat goes off the author of this book (Why Mommy is a Democrat) for finding a new low in ways to indoctrinate kids into the "Democrats good, Republicans bad" mindset. One has only to look at the illustrations that go with the trite reason given on each set of pages to see that this is about more than giving reasons why mommy is a Democrat. The illustrator goes out of his way to take digs at Republicans in each of the three sample pages shown. In the first one, "Democrats make sure we all share our toys...", note the rich-looking couple walk past the homeless-looking man in the background. The same couple shows up outside the university on another page where the admission is $160,000. The elephant walking past while "Democrats make sure we are always safe" is another not-so-subtle dig.

Lets disregard for a minute that this is a book for small children. As adults, we know that the only way Democrats make sure we all share our "toys" is by taxing them away from us. And U.S. history shows us that it was Democrat governors who were fighting to keep black students out of integrated schools after the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Freedom of Religious Education Takes Another Hit

Posted by Mr. H on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:37:18 PM
I was a little afraid after reading Jennifer Morse's article on Townhall today. The news that a California Lutheran high school was being sued was news to me, even though the actual event happened a year ago. I was afraid because I know people who teach in Lutheran high schools in California and wondered if any of them were at the school involved. I teach in a Lutheran school myself, and was also afraid if it was a school associated with my church body. It turns out that the school involved is not; it is affiliated with one of the other Lutheran church bodies in this country.

Enough about the fear and on to the matter at hand. I am continually reminded of Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution (the "supremacy  clause") in times like this. A religious institution does not check its right to freely practice its religion at the door just because it is acting "in the public good" as an education institution. A law passed by the California legislature does not trump the First Amendment.

Every tax-exempt organization in the United States is required by the IRS to submit a statement of non-discrimination every year. The year I was principal of my previous school, I had to submit this form. On it, I affirmed that my school did not discriminate on the basis of age, race, gender, or national origin. Nowhere in that statement does it refer to sexual orientation. Despite the gay rights movement's best efforts to the contrary, being a GLBT person does not qualify one for protected status. A religious institution certainly does not have to recognize such status in how it admits or keeps students.

Despite the attorney for the girls' claims otherwise, the precedent set in Boys Scouts of America v. Dale [530 U.S. 640 (2000)] should apply here. A non-profit organization with religious tenets has the right to determine that people who, by their behavior or speech, contradict those tenets may no longer associate with them.

The fact that both the local court and the California Supreme Court are willing to let this case continue through the legal system shows that the Constitutional-law knowledge requirements to be a judge in California must be low. We can only hope that the 9th Circus throws this case out on appeal, but I have my doubts. I have the feeling that once again the U.S. Supreme Court will have to waste its time to correct what should be an easy application of First Amendment law.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Introduction

Posted by Mr. H on Friday, September 01, 2006 12:02:32 PM
Welcome to Mr. H's Neighborhood. This blog will mostly highlight my opinions on things that are going on in the United States and in the state of Indiana.

I am a parochial school teacher, currently in my tenth year. I teach middle-school social studies to grades 6-8, and since my last name is rather long  most of students call me Mr. H.  I am conservative, but lean toward libertarianism in some social ideas.

I have no idea how often I will update; it will probably be whenever the spirit motivates me. I do have opinions on many issues, though, so finding something to write about will be easier than finding the time to.

Comments are always welcome. Constructive criticism is wonderful, mindless flaming will be ignored.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »