text:
Religious Signs of the Times
Late in March, I drove up Miami Avenue, a heavily traveled street that connects a residential area with downtown Venice, Fla., and was startled to see 15 ugly 2x3 foot red-white-and-blue signs on a grassy strip directly adjacent to the curb. The strip, part of the city right-of-way, was in front of the First Baptist Church of Venice. The signs proclaimed "Proud to Be an American," "Pray for Our Troops," "God Bless America," "Pray for Our President," and last but not least, "Jesus the Supreme Commander."
During the ten years since I retired after 30 years as a trial lawyer, constantly knocking heads with judges and other lawyers, occasionally using spare time to cross swords with the religious majority (e.g., suing the city to stop its annual city hall Christmas pageant, harassing the local Catholic Bishop with my bullhorn when he tried to conduct an outdoor mass at an abortion clinic), I have mellowed somewhat, learning to enjoy the peace and quiet of retired life. So I tried to ignore the signs for a week. I rationalized that if only the church had planted its tasteless signs across the narrow sidewalk on its own property, the aesthetic nuisance would be almost as bad though not unconstitutional. But Miami Avenue was a convenient route to local businesses, and after being increasingly annoyed by the signs for a week I decided to take some action.
On March 31, I went to City Hall and checked with the zoning department, where I was informed that a permit issued by the city manager was required before placing signs on a right-of-way. The applicable ordinance, which exempted yard sale and political signs, required that an application be submitted at least ten days before the signs went up, and that a $25 application fee was payable unless waived by city council for a nonprofit organization.
I went directly to the office of City Manager George Hunt, who is well known to be a very religious Catholic, and asked to see the Baptist Church permit. His secretary produced a handwritten application for a permit that had been faxed to City Hall by the Baptist preacher. Hunt had marked it "OK," entering the date (3/26) and his initials, immediately faxing it back to the preacher as a permit.
"What about the ten-day waiting period?" I asked.
"I didn't think it was necessary," said Hunt.
"Let me see a receipt for the fee."
"I waived it," he replied.
I went home and typed a letter to Hunt advising that the permit was invalid and demanding that the signs be immediately removed from the right-of-way. I also pointed out that all of the signs except "Proud to Be an American" violated the state and federal constitutions by displaying religious slogans on city property. I also prepared and delivered a letter applying for a permit for signs stating "Religion Is Superstition," "Prayer Is a Waste of Time," and "There Is No God," to be placed on Miami Avenue. I enclosed a check for $25. The not-so-funny fun began.
Interviewed by a reporter on the afternoon of April 1, appropriately enough, Hunt glibly and quite falsely stated (let's make that clear--it was a black lie) that he had considered the signs to be political and thus exempt from the permit requirement.
"We didn't issue them a permit," said Hunt. "'We granted them permission for them to display the signs because we saw them as political."
Yeah? Well if the signs were political his permission wasn't needed, and better yet, why did he show me the dated, initialed sketch when I asked to see a permit?
Answering my demand for removal of the signs on April 3, Hunt built a bigger if not more plausible lie, advising that when I was in his office on March 31 he had forgotten that on March 26 he had decided the signs were political and exempt. But give George credit for lying impartially. He returned my check, saying that he considered my signs to be political as well. It seems that for many Christians, what passes for logic can be every bit as irrational as religious beliefs. And apparently the primary purpose of the Ten Commandments, including the one dealing with bearing false witness, is to decorate court houses and public schools, and not to provide ground rules for life. I sent the check back to him.
I attended the next city council meeting on April 8, and read a brief statement accusing Hunt of illegally issuing the permit to the Baptists and then lying about it, and asked Council to revoke the permit.
Operating with the divine guidance solicited by the clerk, who serves as chaplain and opens each meeting with a prayer, council members gave me blank looks. They did nothing. They didn't discuss the matter with Hunt, or ask him any questions, or ask the advice of the city attorney, who is afraid of his shadow and speaks only when spoken to. I could have stayed outside and addressed my comments to a lamp post.
By this time Hunt had decided my signs were not political after all, and issued a permit just as he had for the church, dating and initialing my letter application. The letter specified that my signs would be on Miami Avenue, and he did not strike that, but he did put "on site" next to his initials which he may have meant to limit my signs to the right-of-way in front my house on a quiet residential street.
I chose to ignore that ambiguous and improper attempt to limit my rights, and on Sunday morning I planted my signs in front of the First Baptist Church. They were promptly uprooted. Having now had my Irish stirred up, I planned my revenge for Easter Sunday. The Baptists habitually conduct a sunrise service in a public park at the Venice Jetties, a pass from the bay to the Gulf, while another group prays at the City beach parking lot. I had never interfered with these flagrant church-state violations, probably mostly because they took place at 6 AM and I'm getting lazy in my old age. But annoyed as I was, I got up at 5 AM on Easter, went down to the airport and cranked up my Cessna, and, perfectly within the law, flew up and down the beach at an altitude of 500 feet, barely offshore, almost directly over the Jesus-praising early-risers, wasting some gas by pushing in the throttle and jacking up the RPMs to make a little extra noise.
Then I went home, put a sign with big block letters--"THERE IS NO GOD"--in the side window of my car and parked it with the doors locked alongside the curb directly across from the front door of the Baptist Church. I am happy to say that the Baptists were well-behaved, not keying my VW Beetle, but they did leave it covered with religious tracts and prayer notes.
The church permit had been good for three weeks, expiring at midnight on April 16. The signs were still there the next morning. But by that time, City Hall and the Baptists had had their fill of me, and when I complained to the code enforcement officer, the signs were off the right-of-way in a few hours, though a few of them, including "Jesus the Supreme Commander," were set up across the sidewalk on church property.
The low-class tent revival creationist variety of Baptists have taken over the Southern Baptist Convention since I was brought up in the First Baptist Church of Gainesville, Ga., where we managed to get through Pearl Harbor and 31Ú2 years of global war without defacing church property with garish, tasteless signs.
Charles Cheves, a retired attorney, has been a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation since 1984.
The Incongruity in the Pledge of Allegiance
Our country is based on the idea of liberty and equality. Yet every day millions of American students declare the foundation of our country to be something else entirely: a single God. Although "God" may be considered in many different ways, it is undeniable that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is biased toward a particular religion. This phrase transforms the Pledge of Allegiance into a contradiction against itself. A nation cannot simultaneously be "under God" and provide "liberty and justice for all." Belief in a certain God should not be a prerequisite for liberty and justice in this country. Religion-specific ideas are not a part of our national government, and they should not be a part of our pledge to it.
The Pledge of Allegiance was not always such a contradictory statement. Until 1954, it was merely a declaration of belief in the founding values of our country. As such, the pledge was a tribute to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, and other American documents, rather than just to a piece of colored cloth.
Then the Knights of Columbus helped spread the addition of "under God," until it was finally adopted nationally. President Eisenhower explained his support of the addition by saying, "In this way we are affirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future." But religious faith has never been the predominant characteristic of America; in fact, many of the first American colonists attempted to escape the requirements of their religions. By including God, the pledge now supports the beliefs of only one part of the American populace. In a country dedicated to the ideal of freedom, including that of religion, God has no place in a nationwide declaration of patriotism.
The addition of "under God" to the pledge has not gone uncontested. In June of 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because of those two words. According to the court, the inclusion of God violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause because it implies that the national government endorses Christianity.
As Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote, "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion." This is exactly the problem with the Pledge of Allegiance as it exists today. It is impossible to allow for freedom of religion when students across the country declare the nation the realm of one particular God.
Many argue that the pledge is not a constitutional violation because it is not mandatory for all students to recite it. It may be voluntary, but schools still present the idea of "one nation under God" as their official position. Most students, rather than attempting to fight against the statement that God prevails in this country, simply recite the pledge because it is easier. Even if they do not actually say the pledge, students are often required to stay silent and stand while the rest of the class recites it. This forces even dissenting students to respect the school recitation of the pledge.
As the 9th District appeals court stated, "Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge." The environment created by the schoolwide statement of the pledge results in an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting" for the students, according to the appeals court. Despite the legal ability of students to remain silent, the Pledge of Allegiance in reality forces most American students to state the superiority of one religion.
All across the country, students repeat the Pledge of Allegiance day after day, many not even thinking about the words they say. Yet for the significant portion of students who do not believe in the Christian God, the pledge is a contradiction of everything America is supposed to signify. For the Hindi students, the Buddhist, the students of every conceivable religion or of no religion at all, the pledge is not simply a salute to a set of values and the flag that stands for them. It is an admission that their beliefs are not truly welcome in this country. It is a negation of the founding principles of America. It is a national endorsement of Christianity, which is precisely what the First Amendment forbids. It is a Pledge of Allegiance to a religion. The removal of the words "under God" from the pledge is necessary to make it truly a pledge of allegiance to a flag and to a country.
Gilene is a graduate of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, Va. Her special interests are dance and music. She plays oboe, percussion and piano, and has been dancing since she was four with ballet her "main love." She will be attending Yale University.
A Notion Forgotten by Time
On June 27, 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made what could be considered the most controversial ruling of a federal court since Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. In a 2-1 ruling, the court declared that the phrase "under God" amounted to a government endorsement of religion. In the months that followed, public outrage ruled the airwaves of radio and television. School children began to recite the pledge every morning, a practice abandoned long ago in many schools across the nation. Even the House chamber of the United States Congress was filled to capacity for the morning recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, a ritual usually greeted by an empty chamber and gallery. Amidst all the outrage and protest, however, a very interesting question was raised. Could the court actually have been correct? A quick glance at the Constitution says the answer is "yes."
According to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free practice thereof." The Establishment Clause is clear in its intent. The government shall in no way promote or fund any religion, lest a theocracy overtake the nation. Yet on June 14, 1954, Congress passed a law that added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance. The passing of the bill was to be a slap in the face to the "godless" Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Yet at this crucial time in our history, America overlooked one of its founding principles. By adding the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, the United States Congress had effectively passed a law respecting all monotheistic religions. The Pledge of Allegiance, as it stands today, does not represent polytheists in our nation and totally neglects atheists and their beliefs. This encompasses literally millions of American citizens.
In the wake of the court's ruling, the nation rose up in protest. We watched as people across the nation slandered the Ninth Circuit Court. Editorials filled local papers, including the one in my hometown of Beaumont, Tex., urging the Congress to act. In a true testament to the failure of public education in this country, a high school student wrote an editorial in the Beaumont Enterprise bashing the court by saying, "How can the court rule this way when it is clearly not the will of the people?" She goes on to ask how this is an example of a true democracy. Had this student known anything of what makes this nation a "true democracy," she would have known that the United States has an independent judiciary that doesn't answer to the people, but to the Constitution and to the Constitution alone. Writing for the majority, Judge Alfred T. Goodwin explains this in the following excerpt.
". . . judges are by constitutional design insulated from the political pressures governing members of the other two branches of government. We are given life tenure and a secured salary so that, in our unique capacity to 'say what the law is,' Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Branch) 137, 177 (1803), we may decide constitutional issues without regard to popular vote, political consequence, or the prospect of future career advancement."
Political correctness has become the tragedy of our legislative and executive branches of government. Too many times our elected officials appeal to their constituents rather than to the demands of our Constitution.
This country has seen vast changes since the days of Madison and Jefferson. Despite their most valiant efforts, politics and popular opinion, no matter how unconstitutional, now reign over the nation as the most powerful authorities governing our lawmakers. Luckily, our court system is immune from this virus, which plagues the halls of Congress and the Oval Office. The independent court system is one that will not forget the idea that the government of the United States should be free from religion, a notion long forgotten by time.
Russ is a graduate of Hamshire-Fannett High School in Texas. He will attend the University of Texas at San Antonio. His special interests are government, politics and public policy. He plans to major in political science and communications and to attend law school.
"Under God" Should Go Under
Every Memorial Day in the elementary schools of my hometown all the students rise up in the auditorium and recite together the Pledge of Allegiance. Almost all the students, that is. There are some who stand silent as the words "I pledge allegiance to the flag. . ." echo through the auditorium. Most of those who stand mute are temporary residents, citizens of foreign nations who wish not to pledge allegiance to the United States. Others simply do not yet know the words to the pledge. When I was in elementary school, there was another group of dissenters, a group of just one member. This was a group of Americans, a group that knew the words, a group that was just as patriotic as anyone else in the room. And yet this group also did not speak, for this was a group of atheists.
Standing alone in this category, I was aware that the Pledge of Allegiance is an important sign of patriotism and is a longstanding tradition of the United States of America. The Constitution is also a document of patriotism, also a tradition to be upheld. Unfortunately, since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, these two traditions have been in conflict with one another. With the fear of communism at its peak in 1954, the Congress of the United States added the words "under God" to the pledge. This phrase does not belong in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Using the words "under God" in an attempt to protect the country from the "heathen Soviets," Congress undermined one of the most important values of American life, that of separation of church and state. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Certainly adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance indicates a belief in the existence of such a being and, therefore, the phrase should not be supported by the government.
But the illegality of "under God" is hardly the only problem with it as a part of the Pledge of Allegiance. The pledge is something that children across America are required to recite in classrooms every day. The idea of a monotheistic God is thereby thrust upon all children, opposing the beliefs not only of atheists and agnostics, but also of children from families following polytheistic eastern religions. Why send children the message that they cannot be patriotic and believe in Krishna at the same time? A child's beliefs should not be based on what is said in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Not only do the words "under God" suggest the existence of a monotheistic god to children, and everyone else for that matter, they also suggest that the United States is an inherently religious nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although the vast majority of citizens of the United States are religious, one of the most important aspects of being an American is respecting and accepting all religious beliefs. As Americans we were horrified when we saw the women of Afghanistan forced to wear traditional Muslim clothing whenever they left the sanctuary of their homes. We cringed when we learned that the fundamentalist government did not allow television for religious reasons. We fail to realize, however, that every time the Pledge of Allegiance is said we are pressured into acknowledging a religious government.
There are those who argue that the words "under God" have some sort of traditional significance. To dispel that notion it is necessary only to look at the date when the phrase was added--1954. 1954!
Under God" is about as traditional as Burger King (founded that very same year, as a matter of fact). The founding fathers could do without "under God" just as easily as they could without onion rings. If anything, it is traditional to not include "under God" in the pledge. Besides, the tradition of separation between church and state is far more important than three syllables--just save us all some breath and take the phrase out!
So why not save the breath? Why not save the Bill of Rights? Why not save our freedoms? It is not right for a patriotic citizen of the United States of America to have to remain silent during the pledge or else risk sacrificing freedom of religion. It was a choice that I was forced to make each year in elementary school, as my patriotism and my atheism were played against each other in an unwelcome, and equally unnecessary, conflict. At every Memorial Day assembly I knew that I remained quiet not because I hated my country but, standing in the school auditorium hearing the chorus of voices recite the pledge in unison and feeling the quizzical eyes of others staring at me, the oddly silent American, I could never quite rid myself of the eerie feeling that because I was an atheist, my country hated me.
A graduate of Brookline High School, Mass., Kurti will attend Boston University in the fall. His interests include law, philosophy, computers and history. He plans to major in philosophy.
For All the People
In 1892, Francis Bellamy wrote a flag salute for a quadricentennial Columbus Day celebration and called it the "Pledge of Allegiance." His intent was to crystallize the best and most basic ideals of the United States. Drawing from Webster's and Lincoln's speeches about the indivisibility of the nation and from Jefferson's Preface to the Declaration of Independence, he wrote: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Bellamy concisely stated our country's guiding principles.
Over the years, two changes have been made to Bellamy's original pledge. In 1924, the words of the pledge were altered to read "the flag of the United States of America"--over Bellamy's objections.
In 1954, the phrase "under God" was added. Religion was enjoying a resurgence during the post-World War II era. The president at the time--Dwight D. Eisenhower--had only just joined a church in 1953. After the horrors of war, most Americans were ready for a more optimistic outlook on life. Television commercials proclaimed, "The family that prays together stays together"; ministers preached about God's forgiveness in lieu of the fire-and-brimstone sermons of the past; and religious radio and TV shows were becoming popular.
In addition, there was a widespread distrust of the communist U.S.S.R.--an atheistic society. President Eisenhower was promising to contain this new threat to the God-fearing and democracy-loving world. But this religious renaissance was not all-inclusive. While many shared Eisenhower's delight that ". . . millions of our school children will daily proclaim . . . the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty," our country was too religiously diverse for everyone to have shared in the jubilation.
In 2002, Michael Newdow of California filed a case against the United States, Congress, California, and two school districts and their officials because he did not want his daughter being taught religion in school. A lower court threw his case out. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Newdow. Justice Goodwin, writing for the majority, stated that "to recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and--since 1954--monotheism."
But 24 hours later. the court put its decision on hold. The circuit court's ruling raised the hackles of state representatives, U.S. senators, and the president, who could not understand the offensive nature of "one nation, under God." As President Eisenhower said in 1954, "Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, most basic expression of Americanism. Without God there could be no American form of government nor an American way of life." His contemporary, Rev. George M. Docherty, held that while the First Amendment separated church and state, that separation should not also be "a separation of religion and life."
The whole purpose of keeping our government secular, however, is to ensure religious freedom for all of our citizens. The inclusion of "under God" in our pledge validates only those people adhering to a monotheistic belief system. Even then, the term "God" may be deemed unsatisfactory by those who have a different moniker for their Supreme Being.
The Pledge of Allegiance represents a commitment to our country and not to a religious doctrine, vague as it may be. The theological aspect of the current pledge obscures its initial, essential purpose. Bellamy himself was a former Baptist minister and could easilyhave included a reference to God. The fact that he chose to focus solely on our nation as a secular entity reinforces the point that the pledge was not intended to have religious overtones. One of the most dearly held founding principles of our country was the separation of church and state. The pledge we make to our country's ideals should certainly honor that separation.
Our American form of government was called a "Great Experiment." Few people thought it would survive--even George Washington had his doubts. Yet here we are 227 years later, still striving to be Lincoln's nation "of the people, by the people, for the people." We have all disagreed with the actions of our leaders and fellow citizens at one time or another, but when we recite the pledge together we are united in a shared hope for our future. We are united by a love for our country and for the freedom it offers us all to live our lives as we choose in harmony with those around us. The belief in those qualities of liberty and freedom is what binds all U.S. citizens together. Liberty both defines and unites us--free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to petition the government, and freedom of religion. We have the freedom to worship as we see fit, praising one god, many gods, or no god at all. This freedom should be reflected in our pledge.
Before writing this essay I had never given much thought to the Pledge of Allegiance. After reading about its history and considering Bellamy's intentions, I realized how significant the pledge can be in reminding us of all the virtues this country struggles to embody. "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Bellamy's words are both powerful and personal in their original, unadorned state. The United States of America is the most diverse country in the world and it seems fitting that such a simple statement so well expresses the one allegiance that is universal to us all: not fealty to any particular dogma, but devotion to the country we share.
Aubrey is a graduate of Conlara School, Ann Arbor, Mich. She is most passionate about acting, singing, and her family and friends. She enjoys dancing, reading, and "leaving long voice-mail messages." She will be attending Tisch School of the Arts at NYU this fall, where she will major in drama.
Robertson's Petitions Nothing New
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision decriminalizing sodomy, Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club" host Pat Robertson urged viewers to pray for the retirement of three justices. He said the ruling "has opened the door to homosexual marriage, bigamy, legalized prostitution and even incest."
"We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court," he prayed over the air on July 14. "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"
He apparently was referring to Justice John Paul Stevens, born in 1920, and possibly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had cancer surgery in 1999. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has also had cancer. But the identity of the justice with a heart condition was unclear.
Robertson's "clarification," issued on July 17, insisted he was not singling out any particular Supreme Court justices:
"I don't care which three, I mean as long as the three conservatives stay on. There's six liberals, so it's up to the Lord. I'm not telling God what to do. I'm just saying, 'Lord, help us.' "
Robertson's 21-day "Operation Supreme Court Freedom" is eerily similar to a 1986 campaign. Robertson told a National Right to Life convention in June 1986 that antiabortionists could look forward to that "wonderful process of the mortality tables" to change the court composition.
That summer, Rev. R.L. Hymers, Jr., pastor of a large fundamentalist Baptist congregation in Los Angeles, urged his congregation to pray for the death of Justice William Brennan. (See Alma Cuebas' whimsical cartoon from that era, above.) He later prayed for the "repentance, death or retirement" of five justices who voted that a couple could withhold medical treatment in the "Baby Doe" case.
Lake Hypatia Fourth of July Fest
Pat Cleveland, director of the Alabama Freethought Association, a Foundation chapter, opened this year's "glorious fourth" Independence Day celebration.
The annual 4th of July bash at Lake Hypatia Freethought Advance, near Talladega, Ala., was the perfect spot to celebrate the appellate court ruling handed down earlier that week against Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Moore must remove the 5,200-pound Ten Commandments monument he had installed in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building by stealth.
A packed house of about 200 freethinkers, representing about half of the states in the nation, attended the 2-day event sponsored by the Alabama Freethought Association. Events were held in the Lake Hypatia Freethought Hall and the surrounding tranquil lakeside grounds, which the Cleveland family opens to participants and campers.
Above: the "antigodville vaudeville" team of Steve Benson and Dan Barker, following a standing ovation for their Lake Hypatia performance of "Tunes 'n Toons." Steve is a Pulitzer Prize-winning daily editorial cartoonist and Dan is "staff musician" of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The one-of-a-kind show weaves topical editorial cartoons with musical parodies for a pointed look at religion and freethought in the news. The talented pair is at work on a revised show scheduled for the 26th annual FFRF convention in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 11. (See back page for details and registration form.)
A slate of speakers alternated with leisure and camping activities, a poetry reading led by Ilene Sparks, Ala., and a suspenseful freethought trivia quiz directed by Clark Adams, Nev. Michigan Foundation member Kristine Danowski took top honors for her impressive repertoire of freethought knowledge. Other presenters included Charleston Gazette editor-in-chief James Haught, W.V., speaking on the history of "Holy Horrors," author Kimberly Blaker, Mich., American Humanist Association president Mel Lipman, Nev., and Hemlock Society director Faye Girsh, Colo.
Banner Summer for Gay Rights
June and July were banner months for the advancement of gay rights in North America. In a sweeping 6-3 decision on June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws banning consensual sex between same-sex adults.
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
A fierce dissent by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, read from the bench by Scalia, called the decision evidence that the court "has taken sides in the culture war." Scalia, a conservative Roman Catholic, wrote that the court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
Senate majority leader Sen. Bill Frist, R-TN, said after the decision he supports a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, the so-called "Defense of Marriage" act.
The U.S. victory followed a ruling by a British Columbia court that B.C. gays and lesbians have an immediate right to marry.
A landmark 3-judge panel in the province of Ontario ordered Parliament to broaden its definition of marriage to include gay men and women. Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien pledged in June to make gay and lesbian marriage the law of the land.
Courts in three provinces have now ruled that laws against gay marriages violate the country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ontario and British Columbia have fully legalized gay marriage. Quebec has approved "civil unions."
A coalition of church groups, including Roman Catholic, evangelical Protestant and Muslim, announced in July they would try to challenge provincial court rulings to the Supreme Court. The Catholic Church has spearheaded the anti-gay crusade. The Vatican announced a worldwide campaign against gay marriage on July 28.
Canada has become the third nation in the world to sanction gay and lesbian marriage, joining the Netherlands and Belgium.
State/Church Bulletin
Cat & Mouse at Grand Canyon
Three bronze plaques inscribed with biblical passages at scenic overlooks in the Grand Canyon were removed, then reinstalled by the National Park Service in July.
The bible plaques were returned to the Hermit's Rest, Lookout Studio and Desert View scenic overlooks at the South Rim, pending "review." The ACLU raised concerns in February over the constitutionality of the plaques, placed 33 years ago by the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary. Each cites a verse from the Book of Psalms. The group's founder said they were fashioned to "honor God" for making the Grand Canyon.
The U.S. Interior Department, which initially announced that the plaques were inappropriate, would not comment on why they were reinstalled.
Bush "Faith-based" Plan
A contingent of congressional Democrats and leaders in the Congressional Black Caucus denounced President Bush's "faith-based initiatives" as discriminatory.
Bush touted the scheme to African-American urban leaders on July 16: "We ought not to fear faith," Bush told 100 inner-city pastors in Washington, D.C. "I believe freedom is God's gift to every individual."
Black leaders held a press conference objecting to a Republican bill to allow pervasively religious preschool programs to receive federal Head Start funding while maintaining the right to discriminate in employment.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force condemned Bush's faith-based plan in June, for permitting public-funded service providers to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation.
God Talks to Bush?
According to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, who met with President George Bush in late June during ceasefire negotiations, Bush told him:
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." Source: Ha'aretz (Israeli periodical), June 24, 2003
Faith-Based Drug Czar
National Drug Control Policy director John Walters in July announced a national drive to enlist faith-based youth groups in anti-drug programs.
The "drug czar" kicked off the campaign with a visit on July 12 to Tulsa, Okla., where he met with Christian and Muslim representatives. Jewish leaders, unable to attend because of the Sabbath, endorsed the program in writing, according to Associated Press.
The agency published a brochure, "Pathways to Prevention," encouraging ministers to work anti-drug messages into sermons, and suggesting that youth leaders lead prayers on the subject. For more on the "faith-based anti-drug effort," go to: www.theantidrug.com/faith and www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov.
11th Circuit Vanquishes Moore
A 3-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 1 that a 5200-pound Ten Commandments marker placed in the state Supreme Court rotunda by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is unconstitutional. The appeals court upheld a lower court ordering removal of the bible edicts.
The appeals court, based in Georgia, now joins the 6th and 7th appellate circuits in ruling against the Ten Commandments. The 10th Circuit has recently ruled that a government body displaying the Ten Commandments must permit controversial or unpopular groups and religions equal access.
Judge Carnes, joined by Chief Justice Edmonson and Judge Story, observed that if they adopted Moore's position:
"Every government building could be topped with a cross, or a menorah, or a statue of Buddha, depending upon the views of the officials with authority over the premises. A creche could occupy the place of honor in the lobby or rotunda of every municipal, county, state, or federal building. Proselytizing religious messages could be played over the public address system in every government building at the whim of the official in charge of the premises. However appealing those prospects may be to some, the position Chief Justice Moore takes is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent."
Moore plans to appeal.
House Slaps 11th Circuit
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 260-161 on July 23 to withhold any funds that could be used to enforce a recent federal appeals court ruling declaring the Ten Commandments unconstitutional in Alabama's state judicial building.
Rep. John N. Hostettler, R-IN, claimed that Congress could use its power over federal spending to prevent enforcement of the ruling, and the 2002 ruling by the 9th Circuit holding the words "under God" to be unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Third Circuit OK's Decalog
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 26 that a Ten Commandments plaque placed in 1920 on the outside wall of the Chester County Courthouse, West Chester, Penn., is constitutional.
The appeals circuit denied that there was a religious purpose in posting a Protestant version of the unabridged commandments, followed by verses from the New Testament.
The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of members of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, a Foundation chapter directed by Margaret Downey. Principal plaintiff is Sally Flynn. The appeals court overturned a March 2002 federal court ruling finding that the plaque was inherently religious and improper for display at a government building.
The courthouse, built in 1846, is on the National Register of Historic Places. The court ruled that the bible edict may remain for "historic preservation."
The shocking decision calls the Ten Commandments "a significant basis of American law and the American policy" and accepts the verdict of a commissioner that "the Ten Commandments on the wall of the Courthouse symbolizes civilization."
The ruling attacks the Lemon test (requiring a government act to have a secular purpose), quoting Supreme Court Justice Scalia. Scalia compared Lemon to "some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried." Judge Becker said the presence of "no smoking" and "no skateboarding" signs also mitigate the violation.
Kansas Decalog Moved
A Ten Commandments monument in front of the Wyandotte County Courthouse, Kansas City, Kan., was moved to the lawn of a nearby Catholic church following a 8-0 vote on July 24 by the local board of commissioners. Several members of Individuals for Freethought, a student group at Kansas State University, testified in favor of removal, according to Foundation student member Keiv Spare.
The action was taken by the Unified Board of Commissioners of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., following a threat by the local ACLU to sue to remove it.
"At a time when we're trying to save money any way we can and lower taxes, it just seems to be a prudent decision to make," said Commissioner Kelley Kultala.
Utah Decalogs Moved
Seven Ten Commandments monuments on public property in Utah, which were donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, have been removed this spring.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ordered that public bodies must accept displays of alternate messages if they retain Ten Commandments monuments on public property. Monuments have been removed from public land in Ogden, Salt Lake City, Murray, Tooele, Roy and Provo.
Borgota Eschews Gideons
The Borgota Hotel Casino & Spa, a $1.1 billion resort that opened in Atlantic City, N.J., this summer, broke rank from other casinos by refusing the Gideons' request to place bibles in its 2,002-room hotel.
Borgata spokesperson Michael Facenda said rather than choose between the Mormon, Hebrew, Christian, Greek and other bibles, they will keep rooms bible-free: "The small percentage that we talked to who do have an interest in having it [a bible] available brought their own anyway," he added.
The casino is starting a small library of religious and philosophical books for patron use. The Borgota accepted the donation of the Foundation's hardback publication, Women Without Superstition, No Gods - No Masters, an anthology edited by Annie Laurie Gaylor.
Asks Supreme Court to Hear Pledge Case
Statement of the Case
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was first created in 1892, in celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus's "discovery" of America. After a subsequent half century of widespread unofficial adoption, Public Law No. 622, 56 Stat. 380 (June 22, 1942) took effect, codifying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America (hereinafter "the Pledge"), which read:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Of note is the fact that there is and was nothing religious in that 1942 version of the Pledge. Twelve years later, however--claiming that, "Our American Government is founded on . . . the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God," H.R. 1693, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1954), and that "The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator," Ibid.--Congress amended the Pledge. Thus, in an act that did nothing but add the two purely religious words, "under God," to the preceding prose, Congress altered the Nation's sole Pledge so that it now reads:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Pub. L. No. 396, 68 Stat. 249 (hereinafter "Act of 1954").
That version of the Pledge is currently codified at 4 U.S.C. ¤ 4.
Petitioner Newdow is a citizen of the United States, entitled to all the protections of the Constitution. He is also an atheist, who adamantly denies the existence of any supreme being, and who finds the notion that his government espouses the contrary religious view at all--much less as part of its only Pledge of Allegiance--to be deeply offensive and injurious. Accordingly, citing the First Amendment, he filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 8, 2000, challenging the current version of the Pledge. Seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief, he asked the district court, among other things, "[t]o declare that Congress, in passing the Act of 1954, violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution," and "[t]o demand that Defendant, the Congress of the United States of America, immediately act to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag as now written." Original Complaint
Newdow set out numerous grounds for standing. Chief among these was his personal right to join his fellow citizens in pledging allegiance to his country's flag --and all it stands for--without having to confront offensive religious dogma. With a (simply wonderful) daughter in elementary school, Newdow attends meetings of the local school board. Because those meetings invariably begin with a recitation of the now-religious Pledge, Newdow named the school board and its superintendent as defendants, contending that their use of the Pledge constituted a governmental endorsement of a specific religious belief--i.e., the belief that there exists a god--and thus turned him into a "political outsider."
Struck by the fact that his tax dollars are employed to further the religious message of the current Pledge, Newdow also claimed that he had taxpayer standing, detailing how both (California) state and (Article I, section 8) federal tax monies are used. Additionally, because the State of California specifically declares that the daily recitation of the now-religious Pledge of Allegiance is a proper patriotic exercise in which public school teachers may lead their students (California Education Code ¤ 52720)--and because the Elk Grove Unified School District ("EGUSD") has promulgated a rule requiring recitation of the Pledge in elementary schools (AR 6115)--Newdow claimed standing on the basis of his right as a parent to have the public schools refrain from inculcating his child with any religious ideology. . . .
Reasons for Granting the Petition
. . . Perhaps nowhere can the creative genius of the framers be as readily appreciated as in the Establishment Clause. Realizing that religion is unique in its ability to cause divisiveness and persecution, those who drafted the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights--and the citizens who ratified both of these magnificent documents--broke from a long tradition of associating religious belief with civil authority. That the framers intended to completely disassociate these two arenas can be seen by the fact that--after considering numerous iterations--the final wording of the clause is as broad as can be imagined: "no law respecting an establishment of religion."
That this dissociation would also include the disassociation of God and government also seems manifest. To begin with, as was noted early on in our history:
We formed our Constitution without any acknowledgment of GOD; without any recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, or even of his existence. The Convention, by which it was formed, never asked, even once, his direction, or his blessing upon their labours. Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without GOD. [Address by Yale Seminary President Timonthy Dwight, July 23, 1812]
Thus, for instance, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States is devoid of any reference to the Almighty. Despite the fact that "so help me, God" commonly concluded the oaths of the era, the only oath specified in the Constitution omits those words. Similarly, of the eleven colonies with religious test oaths of some variety, five had proscriptions aimed in some way at atheists. Yet in Article VI, clause 3, the framers employed language as totally prohibitory as that in the Establishment Clause: "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
. . . Under Supreme Court Rule 10(c), it is appropriate for the Court to grant certiorari when "a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court." The meaning and extent of the Establishment Clause's protections is certainly an "important question of federal law." This is especially so when the issue under consideration has caused as much divisiveness and rancor as has occurred in the case at bar.
Both the United States and the Elk Grove Unified School District have argued that it is untenable for the Nation to have an official Pledge that bears conflicting messages dependent upon venue. With this Newdow agrees. Of interest is that even in presenting their arguments, the correctness of the Ninth Circuit's ruling--and the pervasiveness of the myopia that exists when religious matters are at hand--is demonstrated. The Elk Grove defendants wrote:
Significantly, this decision will result in substantial disruption of the daily lives of the school children in the EGUSD, as well as those attending public schools within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. These school children will find it necessary to reconcile why they are prohibited from willingly reciting the Pledge as a daily patriotic exercise when the public school children in the rest of the country are permitted to say the Pledge.
What they fail to appreciate is that the argument, of course, works both ways, and one could at least as reasonably write:
Significantly, this decision will result in substantial disruption of the daily lives of the school children outside the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. These school children will find it necessary to reconcile why they are forced to endure religious dogma espoused by their public school teachers during a daily patriotic exercise when the public school children in the Ninth Circuit are provided with the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, this failure to see both sides of a religious issue is not limited to the parties. For instance, despite the enormous public outcry engendered by the ruling in this case, the chief argument of the panel dissent was that the effect of the intrusion of the religious words, "under God," in the Pledge upon atheists is "de minimis." Thus, we see again the foresight of the framers, who recognized that even federal judges could be oblivious to their religious biases. Removal of the two religious words from the Pledge certainly raises no constitutional issue; yet there was a virtually unprecedented response when the Ninth Circuit stated that needed to be done. That Judge Fernandez could observe that response and then persist in contending that the insertion of those words--which no one can deny at least raises a First Amendment concern--is de minimis seems extraordinary.
Moreover, although the defendants have based their arguments on the effects of the Pledge on school children, the importance of the matter to atheistic adults cannot be overemphasized. To be sure, "[t]his Court's decisions have recognized a distinction when government-sponsored religious exercises are directed at impressionable children who are required to attend school, for then government endorsement is much more likely to result in coerced religious beliefs." Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 81 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring). However, "impressionability" is not the only parameter of concern. The aggravation, disgust and outrage of being turned into "political outsiders" and second-class citizens--generally unrecognized by children--is extensive to the disenfranchised adult citizens who find themselves despised and ridiculed due solely to their religious beliefs. Government, of course, has no duty to overcome private biases. But it may no more strengthen, encourage or even condone antipathy based on matters of conscience than it may do these things based on matters of race. "Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect." Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984).
Only forty-nine percent of Americans would vote for an atheistic candidate. In the constitutions of at least eight states, there still exist provisions that deny atheists the right to hold public office and/or testify in a court of law. Although politicians are subject to ruin for even tangentially discriminatory references regarding gender, majority religion or race, blatant offenses against atheists are not even acknowledged.
The Pledge of Allegiance served its patriotic purposes perfectly well for sixty-two years prior to Congress's passage of the Act of 1954. Accordingly, with strict scrutiny required for intrusions of religious dogma into government, a compelling interest was required before the words, "under God," could have been permissibly interlarded. That interest has yet to be enunciated.
The majority of American citizens may take great pleasure in having their religious beliefs reflected in their government. That, however, is precisely what the Establishment Clause exists to prevent, and Newdow respectfully requests that this Court take this case to reinforce that fact.
. . .
(3) Article III Standing
Although standing in Establishment Clause challenges should be easily determinable according to the parameters previously set forth in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1982), difficulties still arise. The need for further clarification in this arena also supports granting this Petition. The Court of Appeals found that Newdow has standing as a parent, and therefore limited its standing analysis to that one realm. Newdow, however, has always believed that he primarily has standing in his own right. In fact--without minimizing the personal harm that occurs when one's child is inculcated with religious dogma while attending the public schools--the harm to an adult who is turned into "second-class" status on the basis of his religious persuasion is at least as severe.
(a) Outsider status
The Court has repeatedly stated that no American citizen should be turned into a "political outsider" due to his or her religious beliefs. . . . Since the inception of this case, Newdow has argued that he, himself, has been turned into an "political outsider" by the intrusion of the religious words, "under God," into the Pledge. Furthermore, like millions of his religious brethren, Newdow is forced to confront offensive religious dogma any time he wishes to join his fellow citizens in pledging his allegiance to the flag. This is an outlandish offense that needs to be examined under a strict scrutiny analysis. With both the District Court and the Defendants having accepted Plaintiff's claim that he has been made to feel like an "outsider" due to the governmental acts challenged in this case, the burden of proof has shifted to the government. Unless it can be shown that there is a compelling interest in "giving sectarian religious speech preferential access to a forum close to the seat of government (or anywhere else for that matter)," [Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 766 (1995] the Court should take this opportunity to announce once and for all that, in this country, every religious view will be protected by "the most demanding test known to constitutional law." City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 534 (1997).
(b) Equal Protection
This is an equal protection case where atheists such as Newdow--unlike those of the majority theistic religious persuasion--are unable to join their fellow citizens in pledging allegiance to the Nation's flag without being confronted with offensive religious dogma. . . .
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted. Americans of every religious persuasion should be accorded equal respect, and the uniqueness of the Establishment Clause--and its relevance with respect to governmental immunity--should be addressed. Finally, the Court should detail the requirements for standing, which have caused tremendous confusion in the lower courts.
Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL NEWDOW, Pro Se
Roger, Pat & Melody Receive "Emperor" Award
he Freedom From Religion Foundation awarded Roger, Pat and Melody Cleveland its "Emperor Has No Clothes" Award on July 4, 2003, at the Lake Hypatia Independence Day celebration. It is hosted annually by the Alabama Freethought Association at the Clevelands' park grounds in rural Alabama. (Pat and Roger are married, and Melody is Roger's sister.)
In presenting the golden statuette on behalf of the Foundation, Freethought Today editor Annie Laurie Gaylor noted that it was the Alabama Freethought Association which took the original successful lawsuit challenging Judge Roy Moore's courtroom Ten Commandments. The Association was joined by Gloria Hershiser, and the case was only thrown out by the state high court on a bizarre technicality.
"Roger, Pat and Melody dreamed of a freethought 'advance, not retreat,' right in the buckle of the bible belt," said Annie Laurie.
"They deeded the land for the Lake Hypatia Freethought Hall to the national Foundation, which raised funds for the building. The second installment, the auditorium, was dedicated in 1999. Lake Hypatia Freethought Hall was built and is such a success, because of the confidence we all feel in the Clevelands and their judgment, stewardship and vision.
"The Clevelands also had the wonderful idea of inviting the national Foundation to place its Atheists in Foxholes monument here, the ideal spot.
"They generously open their beautiful land and lake to hundreds of freethinkers from all over the country. That is authentic Southern Hospitality!
"The Alabama Freethought Association, which they founded and which is the Foundation's longest-lasting chapter, has worked invaluably as an umbrella organization of atheists, agnostics and other freethinkers to keep church and state separate in Alabama.
"The Clevelands, in publicly espousing this most significant cause, embody the small child in the fairy tale who says, 'But the emperor has no clothes.'"
The Foundation also singled out George Whatley, M.D., for his vital help to the chapter and the Foundation, and Bill Teague, "master engraver extraordinaire."
"Pansy" candies (pansies, from the Latin and French word for "thought," are a traditional freethought emblem) were distributed to volunteers Ilene Sparks, the freethought master gardener; Rachel Doughty, an activist and chapter officer; chapter activists Hank and Alice Shiver; and newsletter editor Patsy Ann Pitts.
Announcing 2003 High School Essay Winners
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has named its major winners in the 2003 high school essay competition. Contestants this year were asked to submit short essays about why "under God" does not belong in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Aubrey Sinn, a new graduate of Conlara School, Ann Arbor, Mich., received the Blanche Fearn Memorial Award, with a $1,000.00 prize. Ms. Sinn, who will be attending the Tisch School of the Arts in New York City this fall, placed first for her essay, "For All the People."
Second place of $500.00 was awarded to Kurti Monnier, for his essay "'Under God' Should Go Under." He graduated from Brookline High School, Mass., and is enrolled at Boston University.
Two students tied for third place, receiving $250.00 each: Russell Hargraves, for "A Notion Forgotten by Time," and Gilene Young, for "The Incongruity of the Pledge of Allegiance." Russell graduated from Hamshire-Fannett High School, Texas, and will be entering the University of Texas at San Antonio. Gilene, a graduate of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, Va., will be attending Yale University.
Additionally, the Foundation has awarded Honorable Mention prizes of $100.00 each to 12 high school grads who will be entering college this fall. Excerpts of their essays will appear in Freethought Today.
Winning Honorable Mentions are:
Hagop E. Bouboushian, Corsicana, Texas; Michaela Bronstein, Seattle, Wash.; Carmen Byrd, Charlotte, N.C.; Emily Gundlach, Davenport, N.Y.; Adam Katrick, Zanesville, Ohio; Luiza M. Goncalves, San Jose, Calif.; Sanjay Gopinath, Oak Hill, Va.; David Leuszler, Stone Mountain, Ga.; Jason Lindgren, Oak Park, Calif.; Sam Marcellus, Port Washington, N.Y.; Kathryn Morrison, Marlton, N.J., and Joshua Parry, Roanoke, Texas.
The annual high school first-place award is named for the late Blanche Fearn, who was a Foundation officer and benefactor, who ardently believed in lifelong learning, although she did not have the opportunity to attend college. A firm proponent of the separation of church and state, she had protested prayers at her public school in New York City as a teenager.
Next year's topic and guidelines will be announced by the Foundation in February 2004, when they will be posted at our website www.ffrf.org/essay.html.
La Crosse Commandments Must Move
Federal District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of Madison, Wis., issued a resounding 41-page opinion on July 14 in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and 22 local plaintiffs, who are challenging a Ten Commandments monument in a city park in La Crosse, Wis.
To read a major excerpt of the ruling, go here.
The City of La Crosse is debating whether to appeal the ruling, with emotions running high. Mayor John Medinger opposes an appeal. The City has until mid-August to decide whether to appeal. Foundation counsel Jim Peterson described Crabb as one of the least overturned federal judges in the circuit.
The lawsuit revisited a case first filed by the Foundation in 1985 on behalf of its La Crosse member Phyllis Grams, now deceased, which Judge Crabb dismissed for lack of standing in 1987.
Freedom From Religion Foundation staffer Dan Barker stands in front of the awkwardly-fenced Ten Commandments in Cameron Park, La Crosse, Wis.
Crabb's current decision acknowledged the standing of the impressive list of plaintiffs, including atheist and agnostic Foundation members, a Catholic man, Jewish women, and some Unitarian-Universalists. Most attested that they felt it necessary to avoid Cameron Park and shopping in the area because the presence of the bible edicts on city property causes them distress.
When the Foundation sent a letter last year warning that it would sue the City if it did not remove the monument, the council passed a resolution to keep the marker "in its present location by any and all means available to the City," including working with religious-right organizations.
After the Foundation filed its lawsuit last July, the City of La Crosse responded by selling a tiny parcel of the small park to the Fraternal Order of Eagles, which had originally donated the tombstone-like monument in 1965. The board refused to consider an offer by the Foundation to buy the plot of land for fair market value, or the Eagles' original offer to house the monument on their own property across the street from the park. Offers by local churches to host the monument on their private property were also refused.
"The law of this circuit compels a conclusion that defendant violated the establishment clause when it displayed a monument of the Ten Commandments on public property without a secular purpose for doing so. Furthermore, defendant's sale of a minuscule portion of the park to the Eagles in order to preserve the presence of the monument proves rather than extinguishes defendant's endorsement of the monument's religious message," wrote Crabb.
In a pivotal finding, Crabb declared the sale of part of the park to be unconstitutional, concluding "there was no reason to sell the land other than to maintain the location of the monument."
". . . a court must look at the entire context of the sale to determine whether the sale demonstrates a preference for religion. . . . a defendant sold a very small parcel of land in the middle of a park to a pre-determined buyer for the purpose of preserving one religious message in the park."
"Neutrality means more than just changing the name on a deed . . . Under defendant's view of the law, [Alabama] Chief Justice Moore [who just lost a similar case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals] would be permitted to display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom so long as he could convince the state to sell a tiny portion of the courthouse to a private party and erect a disclaiming sign."
". . . it is respect for religion, not hostility toward it, that is the animating principle behind the establishment clause. The First Amendment guarantees persons of all faiths that the government will treat them with equal concern and respect. Individuals must feel free to choose their own paths in their search for ultimate meaning. By prohibiting the government from favoring those who believe over those who do not, the establishment clause helps protect the rights of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, agnostics, Muslims and atheists."
A magistrate refused the Foundation's request last year to protect the confidentiality of the lawsuit's initial two plaintiffs, a married couple. When her husband died unexpectedly, remaining plaintiff Sue Mercier agreed to be named publicly as a plaintiff, if the Foundation could find additional plaintiffs so she would not be alone in the community. In the lawsuit's most dramatic moment, an outpouring of sympathetic offers came into the Foundation office. Foundation member Hank Zumach, who signed up as a plaintiff, spearheaded a campaign to recruit additional plaintiffs.
"We gratefully acknowledge and thank our 22 La Crosse plaintiffs for standing up to support the First Amendment in this small community," said Foundation president Anne Gaylor.
Although headlines and letters to the editor in the La Crosse Tribune have been dominated by news of the court victory, most plaintiffs say they have taken little flak. One of the plaintiffs received two threatening phone calls. Another received some on-the-job harassment after the lawsuit was filed, which was stopped by supervisors.
The Foundation office has received some predictably unfriendly emails and phone calls, and its sidewalks were chalked with religious graffiti (see photo below) the day after the opinion was handed down. The Tribune printed a letter from the wife of a local police officer about "our annoying problem with the Freedom From Religion pests," saying others should "help squash those pesky insects."
Some local plaintiffs told the Foundation they had acquaintances come forward after the lawsuit was filed, actually expressing disappointment that they were not part of the lawsuit. A "save the Ten Commandments" lawn sign campaign had lost steam, until the ruling was handed down.


text:
lol...once I realized we had to depend on the Lions winning, I already conceded that the season was over.
Anyway, nobody to blame but themselves. What a pitiful collapse... only thing I'm remotely satisfied about is that we drubbed the Eagles...that always feels good despite the circumstances...
The Eagles beating was awesome!! NEXT YEAR BABY!! GO BIG BLUE!!!
Glibride is a quality NFL coach and his schemes was a critical part of the Giants run last year. No need to bash him. However, sometimes change is needed and that might be the case right now.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Town Square
A rare inside glimpse of a police investigation
Original post made by Jay Thorwaldson, editor emeritus, on Jun 3, 2008
The abortive police investigation into finances at the Palo Alto Children's Theatre became public Monday, thanks to parallel Public Records Act requests by the Palo Alto Weekly and the Palo Alto Daily News.
Reporters Becky Trout (Weekly) and Kristina Peterson (Daily News), and editors, immediately dove into the half-inch-thick report, a result of 11 months of investigative work by Sgt. Michael Yore and other detectives.
The report, written by Yore, had names of witnesses and city staff members blacked out for privacy reasons, an immense job in itself. The tedious redaction work was done over the past week under the direction of Don Larkin, Palo Alto's able assistant city attorney.
The report became legally available after the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office declared it would not prosecute the case or take it to court. Deputy DA Steve Lowney told the Weekly the case was simply too complicated to explain to a jury. He said even he didn't understand what happened at the theater, after working with police on the case since November.
And the case had serious holes -- such as "stolen" traveler's checks that never left city property and difficulty in proving that costumes were "embezzled" for annual pre-Halloween public sales by the Friends of the Children's Theatre nonprofit organization, rather than being declared surplus goods.
But then there were well over a hundred instances in which Briggs allegedly billed both the city and Friends for reimbursements for the same items, and years when there were no receipts for expenditures at all.
Lowney explicitly said the police investigation was justified by the evidence, even if the case ultimately failed the "take it to court" test.
This newly released document provides a detailed, often harsh look at the evidence police laboriously gathered, even down to Yore's daily log of contacts and activities during the peak of the investigation.
The information in the report makes many people look less than good and some pretty bad, not the least Director Pat Briggs and the late Assistant Director Michael Litfin, who died a week after he and three other staff members were placed on paid administrative leave Jan. 24.
Dozens, perhaps scores, of questions are raised by information laboriously -- and ultimately frustratingly -- dug out by Yore and others in what heretofore was one of the most secretive investigations I've seen in more than 40 years of either covering or observing police probes.
No longer. Ironically, one of the most secretive of investigations is hanging out there for the world to see.
Yore and colleagues, up to and including Police Chief Lynne Johnson, must have felt they fell down a rabbit hole into a strange world when they began investigating what appeared to be a simple, fairly minor weekend burglary at the theater in June 2007. Things just got curiouser and curiouser, and the detectives became more and more curious, which morphed into serious suspicions that, like the Cheshire cat, ultimately faded into no case at all.
I've got nothing personal against Sgt. Yore, nor has the Weekly. I've never met him; wouldn't know him if we passed in the hallway of the police station. He declined to meet with the media. "He's too busy," Chief Johnson explained. I suspect he's got a hardened anti-media bias somewhere in there. That's speculation, but if true he's not the first officer I've known of with such a bias -- some became friends.
Yore jumps to conclusions from time to time, such as when he accuses a former administrator of either lying to him or to me (i.e. "the Weekly") or when he concludes that vacation trips to exotic places were "probably paid for with city funds," with no substantiation. But many of his findings and conclusions seem capable of verification.
He also cites the strange roles of state Sen. Joe Simitian and Mayor Larry Klein, both strong supporters of Briggs and Litfin and the theater. Simitian, who once acted in a Children's Theatre production, served as Litfin's executor. At Simitian's request, Klein (whose kids once performed there) processed the estate paperwork, which he described as routine documents. But what's illegal about that? There's no law against "odd."
But Yore said Simitian found in Litfin's condo some additional traveler's checks, and Yore reported that Simitian and Klein were initially "reluctant" to turn them over to police. He does not explain how he knew they were reluctant -- no attribution of source. He could have used some basic journalism training in the "who said?" school.
An ironically sad twist is that Litfin has left the bulk of the value of his condo to the Children's Theatre. Is this something someone who has been robbing from the place would do?
In addition, Yore questions why Councilman Jack Morton, an accountant who does the books for the Friends group, didn't provide specific details about costume-sales and revenues. Well, I don't know either, but one can't take innuendo or question marks to court.
A separate "administrative investigation" has concluded that Costume Supervisor Allison Williams may return to work, but that Briggs and staff member Richard Curtis should be terminated -- Briggs for general management shortcomings and confusing if not false statements and Curtis for getting into his computer during a memorial service for Litfin. One wonders why the city didn't freeze his password when he was put on administrative leave.
Curtis' ironic defense is that he was getting information he needed to defend himself in the administrative probe. Both Briggs and Curtis are reportedly planning to appeal and fight the dismissals.
So there may indeed be no end in sight, for now anyway.
Police also confiscated Briggs' laptop from her home during a search. It was to be returned today (Tuesday, June 3).
But police reportedly still have to decide what to do with a reported 70-plus boxes of old costumes. Are they surplus? Or are they city property?
The core of the case, as outlined in Staff Writer Becky Trout's initial story on the release of the police reports on Palo Alto Online, was suspected embezzlement, a "skimming over prolonged periods of time" by top staff members of the venerable Children's Theatre.
Yore cites lax city supervision or oversight because the theater and its veteran staffers were so highly regarded in the community, and apparently trusted widely, if perhaps unwisely, to run a tight ship.
Curiously, he ostensibly found that several board members of the Friends group had been paid as consultants by the Children's Theatre -- a startling report that would clearly violate an arms-length relationship and which, if true and undisclosed, should result in resignations from the board, in my view.
Yore found contracts for services that Larkin and others declared were in violation of clearly established city procedures and possibly illegal, violating state Penal Code sections.
So now it's time to pick up the pieces. Clearly, the police probe into embezzlement and "financial crimes," as it was initially termed in a press release by Chief Johnson, is at a dead-end unless they can carve out something simple and convincing enough for a DA prosecutor to take to a jury. Word is that higher ups in the DA's office are weary of this endless, tangled case.
At the police department level, does anyone have the heart, stamina or thick-enough-hide to try to refine and redefine the case in the face of community outrage about what has been done to Briggs, Litfin's reputation and Curtis? And aren't we all more than a bit tired of it, as we got tired of the O.J. Simpson case long ago?
But there's still that oddball burglary -- the one that kept growing and growing over a period of months as theater staff members found new things missing in the huge complex of stored items and clutter.
Some quick addition last week by the Weekly pegged the total value of missed items at more than $32,500 -- not including traveler's checks or costumes. That's no longer the chump change it originally seemed, when detectives opted to virtually ignore the burglary in favor of the big item: embezzlement.
So far one person is charged with the burglary, a feckless-seeming fellow of 21, Abraham Esquivias Torres of East Palo Alto. He told police he is a one-time meth addict now trying to get his life straight. He and a girl friend were busted in San Carlos driving a U-Haul van a week after the late-June burglary trying to cash traveler's checks made out to Children's Theatre staff members. The van was not involved in the burglary, apparently.
San Carlos police alerted Palo Alto police after Torres told them he found the checks in a refuse container at the Chevron station at University Avenue and Bayshore Freeway. He told police he had gone there to get swishers (a kind of cigar rolled with marijuana) from someone. Sheesh. Who tells police they were looking for illegal drugs?
Inexplicably, Palo Alto police didn't even try to interview him until Sept. 27, by which time he was long gone on bail and they couldn't find him. They suspected he might have returned to Mexico.
Much later, on March 18, 2008, Palo Alto detectives finally interviewed him (two days after the Weekly reported perhaps coincidentally that he was back in jail on an unrelated situation). After being shown fake fingerprint cards with his name on them in red ink, Torres copped to being part of the burglary.
He told Palo Alto officers he and a friend had ridden their bicycles from East Palo Alto to Rinconada Park, where they were sitting on the lawn smoking dope. How many people would just up and tell cops something like that?
But that is precisely why I believe the next part of his story -- that he and his friend were approached by two mid-20s guys who asked if they could buy some pot from them. Being friendly sorts, Torres and his friend, Sergio or "Savage," offered to share, he told officers. He said the men were dressed like "skaters," with gloves.
Then the two guys asked if they wanted to join them to burglarize the Children's Theatre. Well, why not? Seemed like a good idea at the time, perhaps, being stoned and all.
The pair of strangers were joined by a woman.
Then Torres told of the hairstyles: One of the guys, Torres said, had really blond hair done up in stiff spikes. The other had an "Eraserhead" hairdo -- shaved vertically up the sides and flat on top. The woman had rainbow streaks in her dark hair.
These folks sound like something right out of the villains in the old Dick Tracy comic strip, of which I'm sure the trio never heard.
But anyone who would readily 'fess up to smoking dope and using other drugs during a police interview -- is that person capable of making this stuff up?
Now I'm going to do some unsubstantiated speculation, just so Sgt. Yore doesn't feel he's the only one capable of doing that from time to time. Here goes:
First, I'd say the trio set up Torres and his buddy to take the rap, giving him several thousand dollars in traveler's checks and telling him they were just as good as cash. Right. Besides, how much loot can one carry off on a bicycle? So the trio made off with the good stuff.
Second, my guess is that SOMEBODY OUT THERE KNOWS WHO THESE FOLKS ARE. And they knew instantly, if they read the story -- another speculation. Where's a police sketch artist when we need one?
Further, from skills honed by watching police profilers on TV, I would surmise that one or two of them, if not all three, had a relationship with the Children's Theatre that could date back a decade or more when they were child actors or stagehands -- before they adopted punker hairdos and took up drugs, maybe not in that order.
Becky and I would sure like to interview them. So would Sgt. Yore.
Comments (23)
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2008 at 9:06 am
One other opportunity this investigation has provided is for the investigative journalism done by our local reporters. This has indeed been tricky to report on as there seem to be so many different ways of looking at this story. Some people seem to have preferred the Daily's take and other's the Weekly's. Both newspapers have tried to sort out the mess and raise conclusions at the same time as appearing to remain impartial.
I concur that this mess can be looked at from many different points of view and commend all the journalists involved for taking all the time and effort to try to establish the truth, motive and relative information while at the same time in this high tech age of trying to be the first with the scoop.
For those of us who have got lost somewhere along the line, thank you to all the journalists for sticking with this and trying to sort out the evidence from the half truths and the facts from the innuendo. Please continue to look into this and let us know what you find.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2008 at 9:15 am
Jay--interesting article, Jay. Be prepared from the fall out by the "friends" and "supporters" of PACT who have not hesitated to attack anyone who dares to question the sainthood of the staff.
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 3, 2008 at 11:04 am
Typical Jay Thorwaldson gobbledygook .. all of these words .. and almost nothing of substance to report to the readers.
> Inexplicably, Palo Alto police didn't even try to interview
> him until Sept. 27, by which time he was long gone on bail
> and they couldn't find him. They suspected he might have
> returned to Mexico.
There has been very little made of the robbery in all of this. At a minimum, someone should have at least tried to determine the inventory of stolen equipment, and reported on the status of this equipment. The press has no idea how to investigate crimes; the reporting on this aspect of the matter proves this in spades.
> After being shown fake fingerprint cards with his name on
> them in red ink, Torres copped to being part of the burglary.
This is a troubling technique, which has been used by the police in the past. It's legal, but it means that anything that the police says can not be trusted to be true.
Maybe it is time for the city to post this report on line so that the residents can read it by them selves.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 3, 2008 at 11:13 am
This is the editors blog, not a report. There is a difference. The report is covered by journalists in the news article. Here Jay is using his editors blog to raise discussion points.
Blogging is a new journalistic device. The idea that we can all comment on the news is wonderful to me. It doesn't mean that all the stuff has to be answered. It doesn't mean that the editor cannot put in his own opinion. If you want to comment on the investigation do it on the investigative article. If you want to comment on the blog and enter this discussion, then here is the place to do it.
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Jun 3, 2008 at 5:02 pm
The full report of the investigation is on the police web site. Go to the city's web site, click on police, and it should be accessible from that page.
Thank you resident for explaining the difference between a blog and an investigative piece. What is worrying is that many (most?) will never go to a paper which does investigative pieces and get a reasonably unbiased report. Instead they will depend on opinions and half truth from others who have also not down their homework.
I wonder how the Theatre supporters will react to the facts given in the report. Maybe they will recognize that emotion and wishful thinking does not drive results.
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 3, 2008 at 8:32 pm
> Here Jay is using his editors blog to raise discussion points
Seems to me he is slamming the police with no evidence to back up his claims.
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jun 4, 2008 at 12:58 am
Thanks to the Internet, you no longer need to depend upon newspaper reporters or bloggers to do your thinking for you. Source documents are available to study. This enables you to decide for yourself how timely and credible you feel the investigation to date has been, then what your next steps should be.
Children's Theater Palo Alto Police Report dated May 15, 2008, Case #07-4606, Embezzlement
Web Link
In cases like this, an old axiom has served me well, "If it waddles like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
a resident of another community
on Jun 4, 2008 at 7:39 am
From my personal experience I have instead learned that,
"if it waddles like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, there's still the slim chance that it could merely be a brilliantly engineered duck-like robot."
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 4, 2008 at 9:07 am
The following can be found on page 2 of the on-line police report:
Briggs used her status in the community, theater constituencies and long standing with the city to deter and dissuade internal scrutiny, questioning and auditing of her financial practices. One city employee, Lalo Perez (current director of the Administrative Services Division), told me his awareness of Brigs stature in the community modified the way he followed up with Brigs when he discovered a misappropriation. Briggs told this employee she would cease the activity they discussed, but she did not. Perez also recommended an operational audit of the Theater, but the City Auditor did not follow up his recommendation and commented to the employee that she was a friend of Briggs.
Not only does this report give us a rare glimpse of a police crime investigation, but it also gives us a very clear view of how badly managed the Office of the City Auditor was also. (Didn't this same Jay Thorwaldson recently write a glowing farewell of this Auditor and suggested in the strongest terms that Palo Alto needs another one just like her? Based on this, and many other failures of this Auditor--it does not need any more like the last one.)
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jun 4, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The following can be found on page 32 of the police report:
The City's municipal code requires a formal budget setting process to authorize all spending. The fraudulent contracts stated that the money diverted to the Friends would be spent on the Theater, however, diverting City money to the Friends had the effect of Briggs and Litfin overriding the City's budget process, in violation of the municipal code, because the money death cab donated by the Friends was directed to the purpose they chose. Some of the monies were used by the Friends to find a Director's Discretionary Fund expressly for Brigg's use (Section four details misuse of this fund by Briggs).
Some of the misappropriated funds were diverted within this City's books. These funds were diverted out of the general fund and into a special advance cash trip account that was later drawn upon by Briggs and Lipton and fun trips the theater took; trips which the city believed were completely funded by fees paid by parents or other outside donations.
XXXXXXX [redacted] who was in charge of the box office and of depositing all money collected at the box office to the city's general fund, altered the bookkeeping entry to record deposits to facilitate the misappropriations.
While this bit of text needs to be considered in the context of several pages of discussion, words like "altered the book keeping entry" should raise a bit of a red flag to honest people. (Is altering book keeping entries legal?)
It's clear that the Friends (meaning individuals and the Board) are up to their ears in inappropriate, and possible illegal, activities with public money. The City should indefinitely terminate any association with the Friends of the Children's Theater until a comprehensive probe of their finances and activities have been conducted by the police.
This probe should be on a voluntary basis. Failing to comply, or cooperate, should see this group banned from any further activities on City property.
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jun 6, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this intriguing investigation, Jay!
Sounds like Palo Alto is Lake Wobegon Gone Wrong, a town where everyone knows everyone else and fingers are in every pie. And of course all the children are "above average". A cautionary tale indeed.
Children's Theater itself is a mixed bag. I've met parents who've actually MOVED to Palo Alto so their kids could be involved, with some sort of misguided sense that it is a ticket to popularity and possibly even fame for their offspring! (Woe is me!) On the other hand, as a Palo Alto parent myself, I can appreciate that parents are desperate to keep their kids in wholesome after school activities.
The problem lies when volunteers (presumably some were parents?) and even city staff were so overwhelmingly enamored of PACT that they couldn't call out Briggs when she used funds inappropriately. Reminds me of the Giordano case...when Jordan PE teacher was every popular kid's "best friend" and was seen leaving campus frequently with a female student in tow. No one wants to rock the boat in pretty Palo Alto.
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 6, 2008 at 8:51 pm
How truly sad that an editor has time to write about city employees in the heart of the Silicon Valley! How truly pathetic that the Palo Alto Weekly has been reduced to a gossip page with the editors blessing! Please tell us that there is more news in Palo Alto than what city hall employees are doing? Surely there has to be more important news affecting Palo Alto citizens than this trivial malarkey! Please try to stretch your editorial boundaries and maybe try just a bit to give us some real news stories about something other than the weekly gossip.
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Jun 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Thanks, Jay, for trying to write a reasonably balanced analysis of this case. It's not an investigative journalism piece, but this is a blog, and some guesses and speculation can creep in.
Yes, it had to be done when one reads of the emotionally driven opinions of those who have not read page one of the Report.
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 13, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Dear Lazlo Toth,
How truly sad that your definition of truly sad is so truly sad.
A holocaust is sad; an editor blogging on a labyrinthine cultural and political issue is not.
Jay's piece helped shed some chiuroscuric light on an otherwise murky situation that potentially affects the quality of life for thousands of Palo Alto residents, most notably its nearly 12,500 children.
The professional lives and reputations of numerous people are at stake and this case plays well beyond the level of mere gossip.
Maybe you can instead favor us with an attempt for you to present an even clearer impartial summation of these myriad events?
Short of that, maybe you should just clam up and start writing letters to Nixon again.
a resident of another community
on Jun 20, 2008 at 3:56 pm
I'm a children's theater alum, long gone from PA, and just saw this blog as an intro to this mess. I loved being involved in children's theater, but what finally drove me out was Briggs and Litfin, not that I'm suggesting anything, they just seemed cliquish (sp?) and petty -- to me anyway -- I guess they probably favored kids with talent. And I definitely wasn't a favorite. BUT, boy they sure could put on a good show. I wish my kids had some sort of similar organization they could go to.
What I think it all comes down to, above any Enron-esque evil, is the axiom, "artist organization is a contradiction in terms." -- and if lazy habits go unchecked too long, they become big habits. And it's been a long time, those guys must be pretty old -- because I'm pretty old and they seemed old when I was there.
PS: the three punk stoners sound like just about every one I knew there.
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 29, 2008 at 5:48 pm
The perfect description of a public inquiry
Web Link
This one's for you Jay, and anyone else still reading.
a resident of another community
on Jun 29, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Yeah! that's a good one, but I think you're giving City management and the PD too much credit. If they really were the BS artists in "Yes Minister" they would have pulled this one off and there wouldn't be a controversy or any type of "investigation of the investigation".
Here's one that suits my opinion of this fiasco. The bubbling incompetence of the police torturing an old woman....
Web Link
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2008 at 9:31 am
I like it, but I think you have credited the police for being too soft when in actual fact they were probably not soft but were operating with one hand tied behind their back.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 3, 2008 at 3:20 pm
[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 6, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Thank you to Jay for your thoughts. How about an update as more time with this goes on?
The fact that this can happen with as clearly a caring institution as the Children's Theater is a sober lesson for us all.
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jul 16, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Jay has been covering police stories for many years. When I was a detective, I had no fear of contacting Jay and tell him of a burglary trend, suggestion of how neighbors could be extra eyes for strangers. He was responsible for the old PA Times, having a police blotter, which was a great tool. I used to have people who read the blotter, then call my office and say that they did see a suspicious car or person, in the area of a listed burglary.
Jay has been writing crime stories since the 70's, and knows how to do an investigation of his own. The article above is extensive an shows the complications that occurred all from what looked like a simple crime.
Jay has every right to express his views of the participants, the police the administration, etc. This is a BLOG, not the NEWS section.
As for Sgt Yore not wanting to talk to Jay, that is his choice, but a poor choice. I often sat down in a room with Jay and answered questions regarding my work. The investigation information was reported correctly every time Jay wrote his article. My (unasked for advice) is that Sgt Yore should meet Jay, and help out with unanswered questions, unless they affect the investigation. Face to face meetings are very beneficial.
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jul 18, 2008 at 6:13 pm
As a former resident of PA and a retired Court officer, I am supportive of the PD's efforts to make sense of the confused, quasi-criminal activities at Children's Theatre. Jay's blog is the first clear explanation I've run into. At the least, there was financial irresponsibility which wasn't helped by a lack of fiscal supervision by the City. Gawd, if any other public official had been this lax in their bookkeeping, the stuff really would have hit the fan with heads rolling down the aisle. Some council members seem too closely connected to the Theatre bunch and should recuse themselves from commentary. In brief, appears the anger is at the messenger rather than the offenders.
a resident of another community
on Jun 22, 2009 at 7:45 pm
It would be very interesting and (possibly) explosive in content if someone did a past 10 year audit on how many friends of friends and former (retired) employees from the City of Palo Alto have been re-hired as consultants throughout the various city's departments . From what many understand is that these so-called consultants make huge salaries for minimal level work output. (What department conducts the audits for these completed work-contract?)
Seems that in these financially strapped times, all the cities financial expenditures should be viewed by the public (with no exceptions), and especially the work that is contracted out.
In the past the contratcted work budget has never been revealed to the media and the public in the same manner as has been with the current employees of the City of Palo Alto.
Is the answer "Blowin in the Wind?"
By the way Mr. Thorwaldson this blog was very insightful.
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Cherries and Berries
By Laura Stec | 6 comments | 1,628 views
Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 2 comments | 1,095 views
Meeting Other New Parents
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 786 views
They Are the Lucky Ones
By Max Greenberg | 1 comment | 485 views
One more week to vote!
Don't forget to cast your ballot online. Voting ends May 29th. Stay tuned for the results in the July 21st issue of the Palo Alto Weekly.


text:
Cross Map is used in the definition used in FPS games, it denotes a shot that has kill between 70-100% of the way across a map. This is normally only applicable to sniper rifles doing no scopes and quick scopes as assault rifles and the like are very easy to maintain accuracy.
by Airo HNTD December 15, 2010


text:
I want to see what the consensus is about what are the best bee books.
I will open it with my choices and observations. My current lineup is:
CC Miller, 50 Years Among the Bees
Ron Miksha, Bad Beekeeping
Sue Hubbell, A Country Year: Living the Questions
Some fast observations, please enhance and expound if you are inclined:
First Miller. I have a particular interest here because I'm about 20 miles away from where he lived in Marengo IL. First of all there is some wicked non-pc humor tucked away in this book. Some parts could just as well have been written by Mark Twain. It sent me to the dictionary many times, factotum? A book very much reflective of the time so much that you feel transported. You realize that beekeeping of his day was filled with hucksters and gadgets of all sorts, then you snap back to reality. The "Bee Palace" is one I liked. There is also the obvious skill and integrity of the author that is refreshing. A true expert, peerless but matter of fact. Some of the advice about the real commercial economics of beekeeping is still valid and definitive.
Ron Miksha humorously cites Miller about one of his economic dictums in Bad Beekeeping which places you fully in the modern commercial beekeeping world. I love the extensive citiations of this book! No other beek
book comes close for being such a treasure trove of reading in this regard.
His personal story is compelling here too. Just like Miller in many ways but so different in when and how it was written and the broad geographic scope as opposed to Miller's rooted focus. This is the one book I would give to anyone who wants to understand the current real world of working beeks.
"Simply bad beekeeping" is a true classic phrase I like to quip every now and then which alone is worth the read.
Sue Hubbell I include as a book of interest not so much as a great bee book. Why I include it is it is a book that has some fine personal insight about life transformed from the benefit of beekeeping. Perhaps a unique book from the perspective of a female commercial beek? Needs a bit of editing and update.
Eg. a jab at the ABC-XYZ ref. book that is way out of date. A bigger example is an unattributed quote from whom I presume is a Haiku poet that is central to the author's philosophy which I find falls short. She gets consolation from more questions than answers despite also taking solace from ultra precise nomenclature. However, the poet she quotes gets it; beyond questions, answers and mind are things that are just unknowable but at some rare moments perceptible. That is the feeling of unworthiness that the poet touches, which I'm sure she feels as well but just does not get it elaborated any further than the quote.


text:
Williamslifecoaching.com is a 1 year old domain, situated in United States. The domain is linked to the IP address 22.214.171.124 which is provided by the hosting company Weebly, Inc..
It was registered by Lyle Williams , who can be reached at . Registration details show that it was registered on 08 Jan 2016 through Register.com and will expire on 08 Jan 2017.
The site returns a status code of 200. The site is being served through Apache.