Wednesday’s Thoughts …
December 13, 2006 on 2:06 pm | In Global Warming, Main, State |A strange and troubling story surfaced today about the ACLU challenging the decision of a high school in Enfield, Conn., to hold its commencement exercises in a church.
School boards in Enfield and elsewhere occasionally decide to hold graduation ceremonies in churches not because they want to turn us all into Bible-toting zombies, but rather because they don’t have the facilities to accommodate the hundreds (sometimes thousands) who show up for these events.
And a modest rental donation to the church is a heckuva lot cheaper than spending tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to rent the Springfield Civic Center, for example. Sam Brooke, the ACLU lawyer who wrote the letter to the school board, flatly labeled the practice “unconstitutional.”
Brooke said the establishment clause - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” - prohibits government entities, including public schools, from taking any action that a reasonable observer would interpret as endorsing a particular religion or endorsing the practice of religion generally.
I guess Brooke thinks he is reasonable. Do you think it’s reasonable to conclude that the school board is trying to “establish” a state religion by holding the ceremony in a church for the sake of convenience? I am an agnostic and take a back seat to no one in my opposition to theocracies, but the phrase “separation of church and state” is nowhere in the Constitution.
The ACLU should sets its sights on more important targets, like suing the internal affairs division of the Connecticut State Police. Either that or perhaps the ACLU could send a check to the Enfield School Board to cover the rental fee for a more “reasonable” venue.
For years I have been wondering when the ACLU will write a letter to Salisbury First Selectman Curtis Rand inveighing against the town’s practice of holding its largest town meetings in the Congregational Church across Main Street from Town Hall. Uh oh, maybe the ACLU attorney will find this blog post on a Technorati search. Sorry, Curtis.
Corn Farts Or SUVs?
There’s an interesting and humorous blog post in RealClearPolitics today on global warming. Ross Kaminski writes about a piece today in the U.K. Telegraph to the effect that climate change may not be as severe as Al Gore wants us to believe.
A respected intergovernmental panel will reduce its estimate of the human effect on warming by 25% and its projections on the maximum rise in sea levels by 50%. And another study by the Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative concludes that the livestock industry is responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gases emissions. That’s more than all forms of transport combined!
Or as Kaminski puts it:
What this says is that between deforestation to create pastures, the emissions of greenhouse gases in the process of making cow feed, and mostly from good old fashioned cow farts, cows are responsible for more of the pollution that people fear is causing global warming than cars, airplanes, trains, ships, snowmobiles, and motorized rickshaws combined.
But don’t expect a lot of coverage of this in the big media. It just doesn’t fit the established template and, to paraphrase Gore, it might prove “inconvenient.”
25 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
When I graduated from the Art Institute, the graduation ceremonies were held at the first baptist church a block down from the school.
for that reason. the school did not have a venure large enough for a graduating college class and their families. It just makes more sense.
all that other stuff is a load of bologna.
Comment by fred — December 13, 2006 #
I agree with you in principle but in practice I would have been very uncomfortable having my high school graduation in a church since I am Jewish. I am sure a Methodist would not want to have his high school graduation in a mosque nor a Catholic would want to have his graduation in synagogue.
Granted, a simpel Congregationah church usually has no religious symbols in it and is fairly neutral environment but most houses of worship do
Comment by ZenMensch — December 14, 2006 #
If I am attending a function, I want it to be held in the most comfortable location possible…if the high school graduation needs to be held in a larger facility, and the best faility is a mosque, a church, or even aNational Gurad armory, let it be held where the mot people can view it comfortbly..the religious symbols at any of these places are there for the days of worship..not if the facility is used for something else.
Marshall
Comment by Marshall Miles — December 14, 2006 #
I really can’t see how holding a non-religious event in a church building can violate the establishment clause. As Terry pointed out we have a long tradition in New Enlgand of using the town “meeting house” for multiple purposes. I think the ACLU’s argument would be more on the mark if a town had offered a public school auditorium as a place to conduct services after a nearby church burned. The other way around just does not seem to be a problem to me. While it might be uncomfortable for some, I just don’t see it as unconstitutional.
Comment by Dick Paddock — December 14, 2006 #
As we are busy fighting a religious war in the Middle East, it only seems logical that the effects of that would spill over into our life at home.
It is sad that so many are intent on removing just about any form of religion from our country. Even more saddening is the fact that they will use any situation, such as the one in this topic to accomplish their goal.
As far as I know, nobody is being forced to submit to a particular religion simply by entering a house of worship, regardless of the denomination.
In theory, houses of worship are suppose to be there for the use of all in any circumstances, what God would want.
If it is so offensive to some to hold such events in a church, then maybe they should suggest that all public buildings be made readily available AT NO CHARGE for events from other public organizations who do not have adequate facilities. Hopefully no person or group would be offended by that, and no budgets would be burdened with the extra cost.
It is sad that the vocal lunitics are so intent on suppressing one of the last institutions that truly encourages family, kindness, forgiveness, and so many other of the characteristics that have molded the very fabric of our great nation.
After all, if one cannot go to the Church in a time of need, then where else is there? I know of no Church that will turn down anyone in need, regardless of their religious or any other beliefs. Can we say that of other institutions or organizations?
May the spirit of our Churches live on in America and may the ACLU someday see America and its institutions through clean instead of filthy glasses.
Comment by Michael Flint — December 14, 2006 #
Mike,
As I stated earlier, I am not religious, but you have just written one of the most eloquent defenses of churches I have ever read. Thanks for your contribution.
Fred S,
This is the week for cold-cut metaphors. We have your “load of bologna” and Marshall’s “Baloney Sauce.”
Marshall,
Did your grandmother used to make such a concoction? Sounds delicious … something a denizen of Wal-Mart might dip a Slim Jim into. Perhaps you could make some for Fred B and me.
Comment by Terry — December 14, 2006 #
@ZenMench
One can only hope that someday American high school graduations will be conducted in mosques. (Unless, of course, they are attended by a dhimma.) I’d be delighted if that were possible in Islam.
Comment by Jake — December 14, 2006 #
Wow, a double-bill! (Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis and Glass’s Koyannisqatsi [Life out of Balance]?)
First, in the interests of holiday cheer (it is the day before the night before Hanukkah, after all), a true story: A cousin of mine was bar mitzvah’d in a church in Brooklyn. (He belonged to a congregation that lacked a space, and so rented it from the church, or maybe received it gratis.)
Second, I think the ACLU suit sounds pretty frivolous — as long as the Pope isn’t handing out the diplomas (or something like that).
That said (you didn’t think you’d get off THAT easy, did you?), I would characterize Mr. Flint’s missive as more than a simple “defense of churches.” (Aren’t you glad you have me to keep you on your toes, Terry?)
For starters, to say that “we are fighting a religious war” (a jihad?!) is ridiculous, along the lines of “they hate our freedoms.” Unfortunately, it would take me a whole nother day to deal with that particular question, so I’ll have to leave it at that for now.
(Actually, though, positing “a religious war” in the same breath as saying that religion offers “forgiveness” seems, um, a bit contradictory, does it not?)
Next, we have the inevitable “THEM,” a.k.a. “so many [who] are intent on removing just about any form of religion from our country, etc.” Uh oh. I was going to inquire as to who “THEY” are, but on second thought, I’m not sure I want to know. Somehow, though, I doubt that was the motivation behind the ACLU (or their CLIENTS’) issue, however misguided it may be.
Of course, the ACLU makes a convenient target for the usual dumping on. “Vocal lunatics” seems rather quaint, but “dirty glasses?” I’m not sure I want to go there, either.
Finally, we have: “…one of the last institutions that truly encourages family, kindness, forgiveness, and so many other of the characteristics that have molded the very fabric of our great nation.” Help, Terry, help! Aren’t you going to defend the godless heathens who are vindictive, mean, and killing off our families? Aieeeee!!!
Here is my partial list of institutions that have “helped mold the very fabric of our nation,” offered free of charge: The Constitution; Schools; Political Parties; Cultural Institutions; Unions; Bird Clubs (what the heck!); Farms; Cities.
Here is a partial list of institutions (besides Churches) that “will [NOT] turn down anyone in need, regardless of their religious or any other beliefs” — all of the above, plus: our Legal System; Hospitals; Community Centers; Sanctuaries of Every Religion; Voting Booths (hopefully); Women’s Support Services; Habitat for Humanity; our Government (hopefully, except maybe not if you’re poor or Muslim].
Well, you get the idea. Good night, and good luck.
P.S. Global warming? Seriously? How about we just build hybrid-electric cows? (Ba-dum-bum.)
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 14, 2006 #
It may be what you heard, but I don’t believe Mike ever said there we were fighting a “religious war” in this country. Look again.
Comment by Terry — December 14, 2006 #
No, he said “in the Middle East” — that’s what I’m talking about, and I’m sticking with it.
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 14, 2006 #
(The war that you disagree with.)
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 14, 2006 #
But he might as well have said it, because that’s what he’s talking about.
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 14, 2006 #
I am guilty of one misquote: it was “filthy” glasses, not “dirty” glasses. Sorry!
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 14, 2006 #
I don’t think so. He said there are elements of the religious war in the Middle East that are spilling over into this country. If you don’t think we’re involved in a war in the the Middle East that is motivated primarily by religion (yes, a “religious war”), then think again. Israel/the Palestinians, Shiite vs Sunni — we’re neck-deep in it. And bin Laden and others invoke Islam often to justify their methods and goals. Religion has been the root cause of most of the great wars in world history. Come on, Fred.
But my compliments were directed at Mike’s remarks about places of worship in general, especially those in this country — the fire breathing Evangelists and the Jesse Jacksons nothwithstanding.
There are a lot of institutions in this country that profess to be open-minded but have a partisan agenda (like the ACLU and “our Government,” as you put it). Most of the churches steer clear of that kind of activity. I think that’s what Mike was trying to say. But I’ll let him speak for himself.
Comment by Terry — December 14, 2006 #
Terry:
If the ACLU and other groups are so petrified of the “wall between church and state” being torn down, why don’t they file a lawsuit over the most blatant example: a federal holiday on Dec. 25 (otherwise known as Christmas).
Of all the federal holidays, Christmas is the only one that is strictly for religious reasons (or at least originally was). Every other one celebrates a historic U.S. event or has a civic purpose.
If you’re a Jew, Muslim or atheist and want to get your mail delivered on Dec. 25, you’re out of luck. Need to stop by Town Hall for a dog license? Fuhgedabotit!
Christians, however, aren’t similarly inconvenienced on Yom Kippur, Ramadan or any other major religion’s holiest of days. Why the double standard?
If this doesn’t constitute a state endorsement of a religion, what does?
The ACLU and its ilk, of course, aren’t completely clueless. They engender enough ill will with these more frivolous lawsuits. Imagine how despised the “vocal lunatics” would be if they tried to outlaw Christmas itself!
Comment by Steve Barlow — December 15, 2006 #
Good point, Steve. Or perhaps they should tackle “In God We Trust” on our currency or the practice of Congress beginning each day’s session with a prayer. Either of those would make an interesting SCOTUS test.
Comment by Terry — December 15, 2006 #
When my public, elementary school in another small town in CT burned down in the mid-1960’s, classes for fifth and sixth graders were moved for the next two years to a Jewish temple in an adjoining town. I do not recall any complaints about violations of church-and state. People were simply glad to have a place for their children to continue their studies. How times have changed. And not for the better.
Comment by Yankee — December 15, 2006 #
I took Mr. Flint’s meaning to be that WE are fighting a religious war, as distinct from being embroiled in a Sunni-Shiite war — in other words, a war between Islam and…well, I’m not sure what — so-called “Western values”? Or are we to believe that this actually a modern-day Crusade between Islam and Christianity?
Of all the spurious reasons given for our invasion of Iraq (WMD, bringing the gift of Democracy, etc.), this has to be the douziest. Saddam Hussein, as everyone knows, was basically a securalist, and no connection between him and Al-Qaeda has ever been proven.
If you think that Al-Qaeda has engaged the West in a war for religious reasons, think again. They object to the U.S.’s and its allies’ policies in the Middle East, and specifically our (and Israel’s) occupation of Middle Eastern countries and intervention in their internal affairs.
Israel/Palestine is not a religious struggle; that is, it is not fought for religious reasons. It is a struggle for land and the right to exist (on both sides). To the extent that Israel defines itself as a Jewish state, people often mistake it for a religious battle, but that is mistaken.
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 15, 2006 #
Fred,
You’re sounding a little like Mikey on the Life cereal commercial from our youth.
This may sound like a petulant question, but I think it bears asking. Is there anything about the current state of the world that you like?
Comment by Terry — December 15, 2006 #
Depends on what you mean by “like.”
Ha!
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 15, 2006 #
A few more thoughs, if you please.
I personally believe that all of our involvement with the Middle East and terrorists are rooted in religious differences. WMD’s, territory, human rights and numerous other issues are simply covers for the reality of what is happening in our world.
I believe it is easier for people to deal with the various ‘cover issues’, than to face the reality that it is (in my eyes)Islam v Christianity.
I felt it necessary to clarify myself on that issue.
Second, the institutions mentioned by Fred are not as readily available to those in need as he may think. Those in need are not always poor or minority.
There are many ‘in need’ folks who simply work hard everyday.
I have had personal experience over the last year and one half with how the Hospital and Medical system will put you off or treat you less than human if you do not have medical insurance or the means to pay their overly high charges and do not belong to some special group.
I have yet to find legal services that truly meet the needs of those in need, at least not to any degree of quality.
I could go on, but I choose not to. I maintain that our Houses of Worship are the only institutions that treat all who come in need equally.
Lastly, where did Fred get the idea that Schools and Unions offered anything for free? Schools use tax dollars (and I do NOT recall having a choice in paying them), and Unions collect dues, again without choice from the membership.
May God bless our communities and our country.
Comment by Michael Flint — December 15, 2006 #
Go get ‘em, Mike!
Evidently Fred is soft on any institutions he deems to have good intentions. They are “free of charge,” while those he disagrees with come at great cost to society.
Not included in Fred’s list of those that “helped mold the very fabric of our nation†are police/firefighters, the military and small business owners. Gee, they all tend to be conservative politically.
But I’m sure Fred didn’t mean anything by it.
Comment by Terry — December 15, 2006 #
I would like to ask Mr. Flint to provide us with some evidence that we are fighting a Holy War. Even the U.S. government itself does not make this claim as a justification for what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. There was a brief rash of media blather in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in places like — dare I say it? — the “liberal” NY Times that fueled this outrageous notion, but it soon faded, and deservedly so.
Similarly, what evidence is there that Al Qaeda and other terrorists groups are opposing us, and specifically Christians, on religious or ideological grounds? In fact, there are copious statements by OBL and others to the effect that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands is their biggest issue (I say this to reflect their portrayal of the issue, not necessarily to signal my agreement with it. Whose land it is may be in dispute, but what is indisputable is that Israel has dispossessed many Palestinians both within and outside its borders); and a close second is the U.S.’s meddling in — and now outright occupation of — sovereign Middle Eastern countries. A little history, please: What country cozied up to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s? What country installed the Iranian “Shah” in the 1960s? What country is still buddy-buddy with repressive Arab monarchies such as Saudi Arabia? What country is even now building dozens of permanent bases in Iraq?
Truly, Mr. Flint has laid bare the very worst in religious hypocrisy. What good Christians we are at home, giving succor to the poor and needy — while our good Christian soldiers bravely go to slaughter the heathen hordes of Arabia. I wonder, would the kind hand of philanthropy be extended to those same Islamic brothers and sisters at home, or would they be turned away as would-be terrorists and turned over to the DHS? Alternatively, does charity and forgiveness extend only as far as our national borders, and not one inch more?
If one reads through my sometimes faulty sarcasm in the previous messages, one will see that I am saying precisely that many institutions do in fact treat people shabbily, more often than not those most in need. For goodness sake, our politicians have raised shafting everyone but the rich to a high art. So, yes, it may be that churches do better than most in helping all in need. However, I would like to think that equally, in principle at least, our secular institutions do not discriminate on the basis of BELIEFS. I am not so naive as to think that this is purely true in practice, as I have written on these pages quite recently about the realities of racism, for example.
I am sorry that you find me such a downer on your blog, Terry. I could actually provide you with a long, long list of things I like. But I feel that I must speak out on the things I don’t like. I don’t like hyporcisy, I don’t like chauvinism, and I don’t like being the citizen of a country with blood on its — and my — hands. Personally, I’d rather God give us a good long time out instead of any more blessings.
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 15, 2006 #
P.S. Since my last was composed before I saw Terry’s last: Gentlemen, I did not mean those institutions are free of charge — it was a lame nonsequitir with a misplaced modifier. The intent was: “I offer this list free of charge.” Is it really that obscure, or are you only choosing to see it your way?
As for our emergency services, first responders, and small business owners — well, bravo, Terry — you sure got me there! Mea culpa and ten Hail Marys.
Hey, wait, did you say “small business owners”? — what about Sam Walton? How come he’s not on the list?
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — December 15, 2006 #
I think Sam was busy lining the “very fabric” of his own wallet.
P.S. Fred, you’re not a downer. But I suspect there is a whole ’nother side to you no one on this blog gets to see.
Comment by Terry — December 15, 2006 #