Today, the district sent the following statement “to all employees of the South Orange County Community College District on behalf of our Board of Trustees and Chancellor.”
You may have heard that a lawsuit has been filed against the South Orange County Community College District challenging the practice of opening important District and college events with invocations. Invocations at public events represent a tradition that goes back to and before the founding of the country and continues into the present. You may recall the invocations, for example, at President Obama's inauguration earlier this year. The District wants to continue this time-honored practice by offering invocations and the Pledge of Allegiance at significant District and college events in order to call attention to the solemnity of these occasions in the lives of students, their families and our educational institutions, to invoke divine guidance and blessing, to show respect for beliefs widely held among members of the community, to promote patriotism, to honor America's heritage, and to reflect on the meaning that service and sacrifice give to every human life.In many ways, the statement is remarkable.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, opposes invocations at all public events. The District recognizes that church and state must remain separate, but this should not require an attitude of hostility toward religion or exclude recognition of religious beliefs in public life while neither promoting nor disparaging anyone's religious faith or nonbelief.
The lawsuit points to some unintentional flaws in the District's practice that the District was already aware of and was in the process of taking corrective action when the lawsuit was filed. But these flaws do not include the practice of invocations itself. The District intends to defend the use of invocations at District events. The two federal Courts of Appeal decisions that have considered invocations at special university events both upheld them as constitutionally proper.
It should not take national tragedies such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to make public recognition of religious faith temporarily acceptable when religious faith represents core values in the everyday lives of so many people in our community.
The matter will now go before the courts to review and decide. Meanwhile, we will continue to work together despite differences of opinion we may have on this important topic. Differences of opinion always exist on significant issues of public policy in a democratic society, and yet we can still work together in harmony for the common good of the District and our students.
But before I explain, let me remind readers that the lawsuit (Westphal v. Wagner) appeals to the First Amendment of the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.1. Those (e.g., Don Wagner) who are inclined to regard such lawsuits as an attack on free speech ignore the 1st Amendment itself, which declares the right of free speech while, at the same time, it prohibits the governmental establishment of religion, an action that one reasonably supposes is occurring when government officials, qua government officials, engage in speech of a religious—and especially a sectarian religious—nature. The right of free speech does not entail that all speech is protected. For instance, the speech of government officials, qua government officials, must avoid establishing a religion (or religiousness).
2. The district’s statement engages in obvious sophistry when it implies that the lawsuit challenges “patriotic” speech and rituals. It does not.
3. The district’s statement engages in obvious sophistry when it implies that the suit is to be identified with the goals of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) and not specifically with the objections of the actual plaintiffs of this complaint, who are making specific charges relative to specific events and actions. (See lawsuit.)
4. The district’s statement engages in obvious sophistry when it attributes to plaintiffs (and AUSCS) a “hostility” toward religion. In fact, some of the plaintiffs are religious and, as far as I know, none has expressed any hostility toward religion. Plaintiffs (and AUSCS) do not object to religion; rather, they insist on observance of the First Amendment and its prohibition against “establishment of religion,” a posture entirely consistent with non-hostility toward and even embrace of religion.
5. With regard to “unintentional flaws” in the district’s practice: this seems to be a reference to the Chancellor’s patriotic video shown during his Fall “opening session,” which ended with the words:
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American G.I. One died for your soul, the other died for your freedom.If this sectarian message (offensive to Jews, among others) was presented by mistake, then it is very odd indeed that, two weeks later, during the subsequent board meeting, upon hearing public objections to the video (and prayer), Trustee Wagner (who MC’d the “opening session”) and Chancellor Mathur failed to mention it. On the contrary, Trustee Wagner declared the session to be a "job well done." Chancellor Mathur made a "statement": he was not offended by the prayer/video.
For instance, consider this comment made by Trustee Williams at a recent opening session, introducing his invocation (prayer):
Before the invocation, I thought I’d tell a little Biblical story. Today’s story is about Jonah. In grade school one day, a little girl spoke to her teacher about Jonah and how he was swallowed by a whale. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though they’re a large mammal they have very small throats. The little girl said, “But how can that be? Jonah was swallowed by a whale, and the Bible says so.” Again the teacher said it’s physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human. Undaunted, the little girl said, “When I get to heaven, I will ask Jonah.” To this the teacher replied, “What if Jonah has gone to hell?” The little girl replied, “Then you can ask him.” Please join me in the invocation now.That’s right. Trustee Williams was suggesting that nonbelievers in Biblical stories are going to Hell. Prior to this occasion, Trustee Wagner had encouraged Williams, who was set to give an invocation, to "give 'em hell."
And so he did.
To see video of the Chancellor’s Opening Session (August 2009), click here.
Williams’ “Jonah” story/invocation: go to 07:20. (video)Don Wagner's notorious Saddleback Scholarship event remarks.
The “God Bless the U.S.A” video: go to 2:47:20. (video)
The message about Jesus Christ: go to 2:50:10. (video)
Don, having just seen the video, betrays no indication that anything is amiss with the video: 2:50:31. (video)
COMMENTS:
Anonymous said...
Leave it to people who are so sure of their righteousness to pose arguments that aren't based in fact. Typical.
7:39 PM, November 30, 2009
Anonymous said...
Yes. Typical, and typically pathetic. Please enroll these people in a critical thinking class!
8:09 PM
13 Stoploss said...
what is Microsoft Silverlight? The only MS I trust on my machine is Office.
10:47 PM
Anonymous said...
nice~...................................................................
11:39 PM
Anonymous said...
I like how they invoke Obama's inauguration - ha! And Glenn wouldn't even let us watch the event unless we had it in writing from our supervisor!
9:47 AM, December 01, 2009
Anonymous said...
That story of Williams is just priceless - as is he smug, self-satisfied sniggering.
9:51 AM
Anonymous said...
People should watch that "God Bless America" video – just drag the timer toward the end and then let it roll. The soundtrack is that country song – "I'm Proud to be an American." Then, at the end, we are indeed told only two people have ever died for us -- Jesus Christ and the American soldier -- one died for our souls and the other for our freedom. When Don Wagner steps out moments later, he doesn't say "ooops" or "I'm sorry" -- he just looks pretty pleased with himself.
9:58 AM
Anonymous said...
I think Williams was really saying that smart aleck teachers are going to hell -- ha ha ha. So so funny. Especially in front of an audience of teachers. Ha ha ha. On another note: Why'd they bring 9/11 into it in that email?
10:11 AM
Anonymous said...
Please note that the memo blatantly states: they offer invocations "to invoke divine guidance and blessing." So, in other words, they are calling on the Christian god to speak directly to the district, which will be god's little hand puppet. If that is not a violation of the establishment clause, then what is?
11:04 AM, December 01, 2009
Anonymous said...
They've gotta be pissed at John Williams. What was he thinking? And I looked at that "opening session" video. Wagner doesn't seem to be bothered at all about the "Jesus Christ" message at the end of that patriotic video. How do these people expect to prevail in court?
12:31 PM
Anonymous said...
Quote "It should not take national tragedies such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to make public recognition of religious faith temporarily acceptable when religious faith represents core values in the everyday lives of so many people in our community." So if I don’t believe in religion I have no core values? This district has pissed me off for years. Who are they to impose their faith and religion on me? I have seen things in my life that have shaken my faith and no I don't want to be saved and no I don't want you to pray for me. They stand up on their soap and boxes wave the American flag. They support each other regardless of immoral behavior and then Dan behind them as long as they follow a certain religious faith. I believe a man stands on his own and hiding behind the tragedy of September 11 or hiding behind your religious faith is for cowards.
2:04 PM
Anonymous said...
Does anyone have information on the two federal Courts of Appeal decisions that have considered invocations at special university events and upheld them both as constitutionally proper? What relevance,if any, do these cases have to the one filed against the District?
6:06 PM
14 comments:
Leave it to people who are so sure of their righteousness to pose arguments that aren't based in fact. Typical.
Yes. Typical, and typically pathetic. Please enroll these people in a critical thinking class!
what is Microsoft Silverlight? The only MS I trust on my machine is Office.
I like how they invoke Obama's inauguration - ha! And Glenn wouldn't even let us watch the event unless we had it in writing from our supervisor!
That story of Williams is just priceless - as is he smug, self-satisfied sniggering.
People should watch that "God Bless America" video - just drag the timer toward the end and then let it roll. The soundtrack is that country song - "I'm Proud to be an American."
Then, at the end, we're are indeed told only two people have ever died for us - Jesus Christ and the American soldier - one died for our souls and the other for our freedom.
When Don Wagner steps out monments later, he doesn't say "ooops" or "I'm sorry" - he just looks pretty pleased with himself.
I think Williams was really saying that smart aleck teachers are going to hell - ha ha ha. So so funny. Especially in front of an audience of teachers. Ha ha ha.
On another note:
Why'd they bring 9/11 into it in that email?
Please note that the memo blatantly states: they offer invocations "to invoke divine guidance and blessing." So, in other words, they are calling on the Christian god to speak directly to the district, which will be god's little hand puppet.
If that is not a a violation of the establishment clause, then what is?
They've gotta be pissed at John Williams. What was he thinking? And I looked at that "opening session" video. Wagner doesn't seem to be bothered at all about the "Jesus Christ" message at the end of that patriotic video. How do these people expect to prevail in court?
Quote "It should not take national tragedies such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, to make public recognition of religious faith temporarily acceptable when religious faith represents core values in the everyday lives of so many people in our community."
So if I don’t believe in religion I have no core values?
This district has pissed me off for years. Who are they to impose their faith and religion on me? I have seen things in my life that have shaken my faith and no I don't want to be saved and no I don't want you to pray for me.
They stand up on their soap and boxes wave the American flag. They support each other regardless of immoral behavior and then Dan behind them as long as they follow a certain religious faith. I believe a man stands on his own and hiding behind the tragedy of September 11 or hiding behind your religious faith is for cowards.
Does anyone have information on the two federal Courts of Appeal decisions that have considered invocations at special university events and upheld them both as constitutionally proper? What relevance,if any, do these cases have to the one filed against the District?
How does their bald and obvious motivation play into this?
Clearly, they aren't practicing tolerance.
When I began reading your article I saw no reason to ban prayer. Within the realms of my own beliefs I feel that prayer has and should continue to have place in our nation as well as our public meetings. I also believe that different denominations and beliefs should be able to rotate that responsibility.
These people are trying to establish a certain religion. To do that using a public platform is exactly what the framers of the constitution did not want. Being religious and establishing a religion are two different things. In this particular incident it might be better to disallow prayer.
The only problem with doing that here is that others will use this instance as a reference point to end all prayer. That is the damage that proud extremists can do. They take a valid course and ruin it with their misplaced exuberance!
The History Man
12:41, our society's "value" according to which there shall be no establishment of religion is naturally understood to entail, not merely a prohibition against establishing particular religions, but a prohibition against establishing religiousness (or the rectitude of religiousness) itself. Even so, I would be sympathetic to push-back (re this value) if the religious were to pay a significant price by omitting reference to religion in the course of their government tasks, but such seems not to be the case. No one is suggesting that they should not prayer elsewhere and at other times. There is nothing about their refraining from prayer (and other actions) that signals anything whatsoever about the status of religiosity. On the other hand, there can be little doubt that, especially in an increasingly diverse community (re religion, philosophies, etc.), such actions offend some citizens. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Post a Comment