A while ago, I wrote an essay of sorts on another forum, which I called “The Titanic Effect and our Criminal Justice System,” because to anyone who has been accused of ANY kind of criminal offense, that’s exactly what it feels like; being on a ship that is rapidly sinking…with them on it. It hasn’t happened to me personally, and thank goodness for that, but with the prosecution mania J.T. has talked about, it could, and for the most idiotic “offense.” Or to any of us.

If judges and prosecutors are afraid to tell some of these imbeciles who truly believe “there ought to be a law” against a completely harmless activity or action (like swearing or “aggressive handshaking” for example) to get a grip, it is my opinion they need to get out of criminal law…NOW.

One of them is the “Aggressive Handshake” case and J.T.’s column titled “The Criminalization of America.” What these law enforcement officials were “thinking” in making some of these actions crimes is completely beyond me. Maybe they’re suffering from “prosecutorial dysfunction.” I know that’s only my opinion, and probably a cheap shot, but that’s as good a guess as any. I get a bit cranky when I see what appears to be very innocent citizens unfairly prosecuted.

Blast, I hit “submit” too soon. I should have added “to name just two of our most cherished rights” after the word “speech.” My apologies for the oversight.

As one tragic and appalling example, the notorious Bakersfield CA “child molestation ring” cases of the 1980′s, which is outlined in detail in Edward Humes’ book, perfectly named MEAN JUSTICE. The atmosphere in the courts when these defendants were tried, according to Mr. Humes, bore a stark resemblance to the equally infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692-93; only the type of offense had changed.

Just to compare the two time periods almost 300 years apart at the time, I read another book, called THE DEVIL IN MASSACHUSETTS, by Marion L. Starkey, which was “a modern enquiry into the Salem Witch Trials.” I couldn’t believe it; the methods used to target both “witches” in the 1690s and “child molesters” in the 1980s was almost EXACTLY THE SAME. Kids were being used by law enforcement in both sets of unjust prosecutions to go around the area and point the finger at the so-called “perpetrators.” In the witch trials accusations, the prosecutions suddenly ceased because the girls pointed the finger at the wife of a very prominent minister, and maybe one other prominent individual. Almost the same thing happened in Bakersfield CA, the kids (both boys and girls) began pointing accusing fingers at some prominent people in local law enforcement. But the terrible damage had already been done; wrongful executions in Salem MA, and wrongful convictions in Bakersfield CA. At least in Bakersfield, however, the defendants were eventually exonerated and released, although some served more than 10 or 15 years in prison for crimes they not only NEVER committed, but which actually NEVER happened.

Sorry for the ramble into the past, but I also agree with the person (I forget who at the moment) who said (roughly), “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” These parts of the past, and many others like it, are what we as a people do NOT want to see repeated, and what should be avoided, to the best of our ability. So I will take the walk back into the past, when I feel it is necessary. There are those who believe we shouldn’t even HAVE a Constitution or a Bill of Rights in this country, and would love to see it all but eliminated. I suppose they have a right to feel this way. I just wish they would physically MOVE to a country like Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan, or China, or Cuba instead of trying to turn the United States into their version of the same. I don’t want that horrible kind of government, which only offers the terror of tyranny, with justice for NONE. I don’t think anyone who values freedom of conscience and free speech wants that either.

Okay, where were we in last night’s discussion? Right, Secular Humanism v. Evangelicals. First of all, I DO consider myself a secular humanist, so Jay would probably say I have a “dog in the fight.” Not that it matters, since no religion is required to be an American citizen or patriot. I remember reading a rather snarky remark by George Bush Sr. a few years ago regarding atheists; something along the lines of “…nor do I consider them patriots. This is one nation under God.” (REALLY. Since WHEN!)

I completely agree with your definition of a Secular Humanist, and with what you said about it being possible to be a religionist and a humanist at the same time. Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State does both very well. I believe he is also a minister! He wrote a book very recently, which I promply grabbed from the library and read. Excellent book (I’d expect no less from Rev. Lynn), but darn it, I can’t recall the title right now. Grrrrrr.

I confess to having used the term religionist in a negative light up to now. From now on, I’ll qualify it by saying “militant religionst,” who is, in my view, someone who thinks religion should control ALL aspects of life, preferably THEIR religion, whether others want it or not. Funny how the Evangelicals fit that description perfectly, wouldn’t you say?

Getting back to the actual case, I agree with JT that Key’s case is a long shot at best. I believe, although I could easily be mistaken, that as a private university, Regent has the legal right to set policies that students might not like or agree with. My guess, the university will probably make the argument that Key should have better educated himself on all of the school’s policies BEFORE enrolling at the university. And Regent will probably win too.

As an individual who values free speech, including the right to criticize ‘leaders’ like Pat Robertson publicly, the LAST place I would have enrolled in is a college that places Evangelical Christian ideology at the top of the list.

The night-owl DW is still up, though even he is flagging at this hour.

Mespo’s message to you of hope was great and I agree wholeheartedly.

Don’t let the state of the union (or that of the world) get you down!

Change can come very fast. And tyrannies can crumble very fast.

Your comments to Jay are on the money. The evangelicals like to think that secular humanism is itself a religion, but of course they are wrong. They conflate, because it is advantageous for them to do so, belief systems and religions. Its like conflating darkness and light. Darkness is the mere absence of light…it is not a different KIND of light. Secular humanism can be the absence of belief in a religion, not a different KIND of religion. And even if it were a religion, it definitely isn’t one within the usage of the term when the Framers were writing the First Amendment.

I would argue further that one can be a perfectly good religionist and still be a secular humanist at the same time!

Congratulations to the three of us!
**********

Make that four, please. Okay, NOW I’m really going. I KNEW I shouldn’t have scrolled up.

Nope. Just places of indoctrination of secular humanism and/or atheism depending on your point of view.

**************

And secular humanism and/or atheism are “bad” things….why, exactly? Because some schools insist on adherence to the first words of the First Amendment? You know, the part that goes, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

And here I was thinking the mixing of religion with government was precisely what that amendment was written to PROHIBIT. How silly of me.

Darn, looks like I arrived when everyone has already gone for the night. Hate it when that happens. Okay, good night all. I’ll turn off the “light.”

The way I see it, I doubt any of Regent’s graduates would represent that client in any way that could be considered effective. Especially not if the lawyer has a strong Evangelical Christian bias and the client is either a non-Christian or “worse” (according to Robertson), an atheist or agnostic. It would end up as a constant clashing of verbal “swords,” and nothing positive could come out of such a representation.

Mespo, thanks so much for this reply. I’m copying part of it only because the “party” started again, and figured I should use a quote for my latest reply, so no one (including me lol) would get confused. I so enjoy this blog too, and I thank JT so much for creating it. It was his and KO’s discussions on COUNTDOWN that led me here, and being part of any serious discussions about positive changes is a pleasure and a privilege for me.

JS would never allow my little test probe about moments of silence go unchallenged without reminding all of us of Brown, etc.

As Mespo says, can’t win ‘em all!

Good night as well Mespo and Jay.

Nope. Just places of indoctrination of secular humanism and/or atheism depending on your point of view

As Geo. Bernard Shaw so elegantly said: “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.” That’s why government sanctioned religion never works. Substitute “Quo’ran” or “Bhagavadgītā” for “Bible” and you see just how prescient Shaw’s words are.”

Congratulations to the three of us!

Nor should they be forced to be, sorry ACLJ!

Except teacher-sanctioned prayer?

Now who’s being led by their ideology? You should be well aware of the parental rights under the Constitution. Whether we like it or not, parents are responsible for their children in every aspect until proven unfit. Unless you are taking it upon yourself to expand the definition of unfit parenting to include Creationist parents, I guess we’ll just have let parents be parents.

Evidently, government “coercion” of school children is okay when it suits your ideology?

We gave Jay glory (and a large benefit of the doubt) now we take it away.. Sic Transit Gloria!

As to teaching Evolution Theory as fact and “alternative lifestyles” etc. Since when do we go to school to learn things that we agree with or are agreeable to us? We don’t have a right, in the public square, to be free from that which offends our religious sensibilities.

Let parents home school their children and teach them any world view they please. But in the public schools, lets teach science.

I do find it amusing. Well, reflected glory is better than none at all

I love this Judith Hayes quote: “If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.”

Do you find it interesting that “Jay” has neither confirmed nor denied?

What was shocking is that it was a quote from the article!

You must be kidding. Do you really believe that evolution is not a time tested, verifiable, and scientifically accurate explanation for the origins of life on the planet. It is not a “theory” in the sense that it is merely states a possibility. In science, theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. There is no hierarchy between facts and theories with facts being higher. The facts are data and the theory explains the data through verifiable and repeatable experimentation. At it’s core evolution is both fact and theory. Even the Catholic Church admits that after centuries of butting heads with the evidence. If you’re asking me if people have a right to be stupid, I would have to say yes but why would they want to be? My question is do parents have the right to indoctrinate their children with myth and fairy tales?

Now you’ve got me deeply worried. Imagine someone in the Virginia AG’s office saying “my resume is God’s instrument.”

for those interested in Regents Law Schools rise to prominence:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601799.html

I believe that even the most fair minded of us think there was a greased skid operating in favor of the Law School’s graduates.

Imagine a Democratic administration with say, 150 NLG lawyers working for it!!!

Thank you for establishing that most attorneys are only intersted in serving money!

(And to think someone said I have no sense of humor

About teacher sanctioned prayer in public school: “the risk of government coercion is clearly present against non-believing high school students.”

I’m just curious what other risks of government coercion you are concerned about? Teaching Evolutionary Theory as a fact? Teaching “safe” sex? Teaching alternative lifestyles?

What about all the “non-believing” students who don’t want to hear about all that stuff from their teachers?

I don’t disagree that anyone with a deep-seated agenda, bias, hatred or prejudice (liberal or conservative) can most certainly be an ineffective assistance of counsel in a given case when it blinds proper analysis of justice and the law. Every generation of lawyers faces this problem.

But the problem with Virginia Attorney’s claims, which I’ve continually pointed out, is that simply labling someone and dismissing them out of hand is poor evidence of anything. Virgina Attorney’s opinion of Pat Robertson or Regent University does not make it so. He (or she) would have us believe that anyone associated with that institution must have been brainwashed in some kind of sinister “ideology.” Yet Regent has an extremely diverse student body of strong, independent-minded law students and alumni, and the facts simply do not support Virginia Attorney’s claims.

Regent Law appears to exists to confront the negative stereotypes that plague Virginia Attorney’s profession, not to add to it. And nobody is perfect. But Regent Law’s Christian mission and perspective undoubtedly works to provide a greater sense of moral duty and higher personal and professional standards beyond the bear minimum requirements of the attorney Code of Professional Ethics.

Because that’s what every client wants, right? An attorney that upholds the bear minimum of professional ethics?

My thoughts exactly. Sekulow knows it’s a game of wits and circumstances and that no one wins or loses all the time.

Scary!

As you were posting your response, I was finishing mine. Talk about synchronicity.

That’s not Jay Sekulow. I am sure he knows better.