But that isn't enough for Mike. Ten days later he morphs his email into an article in the Charleston Daily Mail with his own byline. Mike asserts that this matter of the Portrait of Christ hanging in the school is not a matter for the Board of Education but it is rather a matter for the Courts to decide. Given Mike's belief, one might wonder why he is on a publicity campaign to accomplish in the media what he abdicates as a member of the Board and claims is a Federal Judiciary responsibility. Namely, to set personnel policy for goverment school employees.
Queen writes,
Mike continues towards the end of the email ...The real question that needs to be answered is what limitations need to be in place for school employees (principals, teachers, counselors and school service personnel) to be able to freely express themselves without doing so at the expense of the rights of others.
That question needs to be answered, and the rights of our school employees need to be clearly defined by the court system -- not by the Harrison County Board of Education, and certainly not by the ACLU.
The Harrison County Board of Education needs to look to the court system to establish guidelines to protect the rights of 1,200 local employees and more than 30,000 school employees throughout West Virginia.Here's a problem. The law suit against the school board has nothing to do with what Mike Queen decides the lawsuit is about. Or, what he can convince the general population of what he would like the law suit to be about. The law suit is about the specific complaints in this; Harold Sklar & Jacqueline McKenzie v. Board of Education of the County of Harrison; Carl Friebel Jr., and Lindy Bennett.
The purpose of the court is to vindicate the assertion of an individual's rights, not to set a broad personnel management policy for the Board of Education.
Queen's article sets out all kinds of hypotheticals that will go unaddressed because they are irrelevant to the complaint before the court. Queen thinks this will turn into a case about 'wearing a crucifix', or a St. Christopher's statue on a dashboard or Congress opening a session with a prayer. Queen's reasoning is sophomoric. A reasonable and reflective new member to the board should take advantage of the Boards pre-paid legal counsel and get a tutorial. But Mike is having too much fun promoting himself as a champion of a cause that he believes as a member of an impotent Board of Education he cannot decide. If Queen really thought this should be in the hands of the court he ought to sit down, be quiet, and see if he can learn something. On the other hand ...
< Perhaps, like George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door, Queen sees his popularity enhanced by his defiance of the Constitution for cheap political gain. Ask him.
posted by Gundovald at 7/12/2006 01:18:00 PM
12 Comments:
Shockdoc writes:
Mike Q. is simply wrong.
Duh !! I think potential school employees (or any government job for that matter) should be given a copy of the Constitution and simply be told when they are applying for work : "No religious speech or personal effects during work hours when kids are in class". Period. Full stop. If you feel compelled to be a portable religious billboard or feel the need to occasionally proselytize to vulnerable kids sitting at the back of the school buses, then please take your job application to the parochial school or Dairy Mart. I don't think government agents, during the course of their work taxing and inspecting and harrassing and registering and ticketing and fining and telephone tapping and urine sampling and manhandling and brainwashing and controlling and profiling and conscripting, should have all the rights of ordinary citizens. The odds are in their favor as it is. Don't give them the satisfaction that Jesus or Buddha oversees and approves of what they are doing during their work. I believe there is precedent (for example, prohibitions on campaign activity by state employees) -- and anyway, why make it easy or comfortable for the SOB's. So, Mike,let's just go ahead and have the Supreme Court look at all these thorny situations and activities you list, where naive and unprepared government employees just happen to be wandering around government school property during working hours with ash on their foreheads or swinging a cross whilst humming their favorite Sunday hymn. You can't stamp out everything (and maybe there is some arguments for not trying to stamp out every tiny smidgen of religion through daily witchhunts) , but if it is noticed by a citizen in good faith, then it should be removed hastily without much ado.
In the meantime Mike, be careful what you ask for.......
Shockdoc -- lookin' for liberty and reason in all kinds of places.
If this picture hung in one school for so many years with the school board and staff's knowledge, will we turn a blind eye to the next public school that wants to hang a picture of trigger happy Kim Jong II?
Both excellent comments. Shockdoc can turn a phrase and capture the nature of some government employees and their face to the public. Keeping the burden of choosing a religion for the rest of us shouldn't be part of their job description. Mike Queen's love for publicity knows no end. He has written a letter to the editor of the Shinnston news that is almost verbatim to his email and what he wrote for the Daily Mail. Kind of ironic considering his position that it is a matter for the federal courts and not for the board of Ed. That must mean that PUBLICIY for the sake of PUBLICIY is his issue.
Shockdoc writes:
....and furthermore, I agree that MQ is trying to garner publicity for himself with this crusade. The "real challenge" is for MQ to apply his oath to uphold the Constitution. This of course requires a reasoning mind ; one that is in touch with reality. From his many-times-over-copied-and-notorious letter, we find that he believes there is some kind of extenuating or mitigating circumstance if the picture "on loan" has been peering over students shoulders for the past "35 years". Well it shouldn't matter how the heck, or when, it got nailed to the drywall, whether by the original building contractor, or if it was surreptitously and anonymously whisked into the government building under cover of darkness (and , of course, we all remember how roundly criticized a certain Judge Moore in Alabama was received after he snuck a 5200 lb. carving of the ten commandments into his courthouse a couple of years ago). Some people try to be too clever for their own good (and for the good of those around them) when they try to clumsily reinvent the wheel, or try to shoot themselves in the foot to see if it really hurts, or try to play Russian Roulette to see if they are any luckier than the last guy. That's fine and dandy -- all I ask is that they have their donor card legibly filled out in advance and make sure they've covered the walls and floor with a big tarpaulin.
I need to know the following : Which Supreme Court decision says "the right for one to freely express themselves regarding their religious preferences or beliefs does not stop at the schoolhouse door"?
Surely this must refer to the right of the general public -- that is, the non government agents -- who enter the building. If this refers to the government employees during the course of their work with the public, then their is no wall of separation. It would become a wire fence, and a low lying one at that. Once the state agent drops from the roof of the cave, puts on his cape, and flits around looking for victims to fill his monthly quota, then I believe he has lost his right to the free speech provided to his victims. Yep, sorry to tell you Vlad, but you've got to go back to your cave and paint over that Star of David (since we know what happens around a cross).
I don't know what to make of the Mobius strip sentence wherein MQ searches everywhere -- behind the toaster, under the rug --for the "limitations" to be placed on Vlad and company. They shouldn't be doing any talking or expressing about anything other than their work duties --they don't get paid to do that. Do that when they're off the clock and on their own dime, damn it. On my dime, they're paid to do important stuff like inspecting lockers for vitamins and teaching driver ed and health ed and sex ed and prenatal ed and childcare ed and phys ed and home ec and special ed and ATV ed and drug ed to prepare them for the Westest.
Not withstanding the recent change in the makeup of the Supremes, I can only hope that they pick up the gauntlet thrown down oh-so-casually by MQ, and take up the issue of all these hypotheticals and shove the decision hard and fast you know where. Won't he then be oh-so-popular with the rank and file cross swingers and hymn hummers around the country-- those who only ever just wanted to be left alone to continue quietly plying their wares in the halls of the courts and the schools.
Oh, yeah, MQ. On the matter of upholding the Constitution, while you are sweating over your case with your AFA lawyers, ask them to point to anywhere in the Constitution where the government is empowered to set up massive school plantations. Don't cheat and lean too liberally and heavily on the 'general Welfare' clause to apologize for this clearly unconstitutional government sojourn. Now, that would be a truly beneficial subject for all the trapped school children to explore ! Brave enough?
Shockdoc -- always trying to rescue liberty and reason out from under the rubble of force and faith.
The only use of the concept, "leaving rights at the school house door", from the Supreme Court that I can find involves this: in 1969 a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa wore armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War. These students were merely practicing their rights as United States citizens according to the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that students do not lose the right to free speech upon entrance to school (Tinker vs. Des Moines-1969). Mike Queen is either getting bad legal advice or he keeps making this stuff up, while checking over his shoulder to be sure that his followers are still there. Of course, MQ has not yet got around to the rights of students. Or, I'm totally ignorant and have a lot to learn myself from the Master. ...G
Shockdoc writes
.....and, finally, just for fun, since MQ is so very certain when the state is NOT trying to establish religion, let's have MQ squint through the other end of the telescope and answer simple questions such as: Does he or does he not think that there should be separation of church and state? How would he or anyone know when the state WAS actually trying to establish religion? Or, if you'd rather have it: How would you know when their is no separation -- but rather a connection ? Would it come about suddenly, say like a bolt of lightning out of the blue ? Perhaps, but not likely. More likely however -- and even MQ would possibly go along with this scenario -- state sponsorship of religion and any other politically sensitive matter, would slowly appear, to be nurtured and protected by its' rapt supporters, all the while everyone is to be told how harmless and cute and irrelevant it is as it grows, fed and tended by state resources, to be a well muscled 800 lb. gorilla. So, if the government sets up laws/provisions/statutes to support religion, say for example, in the form of a portrait of Jesus, how can we determine if the intent is any different or more benign. But the Founding Fathers knew that government was incapable of having a conscience, and they dared not not put an exception in the First Amendment, to the effect that some so-called 'good' or 'secular' intention of state agents would allow them to introduce religion into state activities. They knew the mindless force of the state was incapable of actual 'good', despite the proclamations and protests and pleadings which would inevitably come from the state and it's coterie of robed and bejewelled parasites and leeches.
MQ does not want to see from history (something that kids should be exposed to) that whenever the state apparatus and state agents are used to provide a group with favor or support, there is always a price to be paid. Don't think that the state won't get a pound of flesh for providing church marketing and recruiting stations in school hallways. There has never been an exception -- and there won't be. The state gets Hershey's and Coke to come to the negotiating table in the school cafeteria -- and they will get your group to horse trade as well. What is your faith going to offer up to Leviathan? Which of your Ten Commandments are you going to trade for the First Amendment?
Shockdoc -- vigilance and courage are necessary and sufficient for liberty and reason to trump force and faith.
Please....I personally feel that there are bigger issues that should be addressed before we choose to worry about where a picture of Jesus hangs (if you don't want to look at it, then don't. That is your choice.), or if a student say a prayer before he takes a test(which you probably won't hear anyway. However, in the event you do, why not simply walk away or just don't listen rather than making it the "issue" of the day.)
I think that we should all focus our energies on (in my opinion, and that's just what it is, plain and simple) more important issues, such as, ways to bring gas prices down, and the costs of health care and medications.
Thank you for listening.
Having your own opinion is apparently on the chopping block what a load of bs that the aclu can come into our house and literally overnight be judge jury and rightful owner of our beliefs
If everyone is so concerned about a picture hanging in our schools that may offend some because of beliefs, then why is there no uproar over the ten commandments on the front of the harrison county court house?
Whoa! Don't start something new. The BHS issue is sad, really sad, but please don't start on our Court House!
For Keno and the next Anonymous below who made the comment, "The BHS issue is sad, really sad, but please don't start on our Court House!" I think we are very safe with the Court House. Recent decisions also reflect the view that Religious heritage is not an establishment of religion. If you ever go to Washington, D.C as a tourist try to go to the US Supreme Court Building. There are religious symbols throughout the magnificient structure. It would make you proud to be an American. To the Anonymous above Keno, be at peace. Your opinion is not on the chopping block. Let this play out as it will and perhaps we will all get a bit smarter before it is over. The ACLU is an org we love to hate. Scroll down on my blog and read the piece about the ACLU defending the rights of a school girl to sing a religious song after school! There are many ways to interpret our constitution and our laws. That is why their are libraries of case law and many lawyers. To everything there is an exception.
Seperation of Church and State! Hooey! Last time I looked at a dollar bill it said in God We Trust. Oh, gee what do you know, it says that on every bill and coin. We were founded on a belief in God. The Bible was the first text book in public school. The only seperation that is necessary is keeping the State out of Church. Religeon was never meant to be kept of of Government.
Post a Comment
<< Home