Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


What Does SCOTUS Nominee Elena Kagan Really Believe?

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry,

 

I’m glad were on the same page when it comes to calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask probing questions of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan at the upcoming confirmation hearings.

 

All we’ve seen so far are these staged ‘grip-and-grin’ meetings on Capitol Hill with members of the Senate. 

 

And there’s growing criticism over how the White House is going to new limits to control the process – even producing a White House “interview” with Kagan - trying to give the impression that this is some sort of  newsworthy interview with the nominee – a move that was soundly and correctly rejected by members of the news media. 

 

Barry, the fact is there’s still much to learn about this nominee.  Although, with each passing day, there are more reports about her writings in the past.

I do want to know more about the position she took in a 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

 

In the piece, she argued the Supreme Court should be focused on ferreting out improper government motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

 

And in arguments before the high court last fall in the Citizens United case in which she argued that the government could prohibit political speech by corporations – an argument rejected by the Court – Kagan’s position on the First Amendment was sharply criticized by Chief Justice John Roberts:

 

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” wrote Roberts. “Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations–as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

 

Granted, in that case, as Solicitor General, it was her job to defend the federal campaign finance law.  But, clearly, we need to know how she interprets the First Amendment.

 

And, then there’s the issue of abortion.  Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said that Kagan told her that she considered Roe v. Wade to be “settled law.”  There’s certain to be more questioning about this during the confirmation hearings.  And there should be.

 

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, isn’t waiting for the hearings.  The organization already has endorsed Kagan without hesitation – its statement of support coming the day the nomination was announced. 

And while it’s true that Kagan does not have much of a public “paper trail” on church/state issues, or any other issues for that matter, we really need to see what some are calling a “very long paper trail” from her work in the White House Counsel’s Office for President Clinton during 1995-96.

Let’s not forget that in 2005, when John Roberts was nominated to the high court, minority Democrats wanted to see papers Roberts had written while serving in the Reagan White House Counsel’s Office in the mid-1980s.  President Bush complied, and the Judiciary Committee was given more than 50,000 pages of material detailing Roberts’ positions on many issues – including civil rights, the separation of powers and school prayer.

 

Right now, some Senate Democrats are dodging the question about whether the Obama Administration should make those records available.

Let’s hope the Kagan papers are made public for all to see.

 

In some of the closed-door meetings with Senators this week on Capitol Hill, Kagan stood by her criticism of the confirmation process saying the hearings can be a “charade.” 

 

The fact is that America can’t afford to have these confirmation hearings become a “charade.”  We need to know more about this nominee – more about her judicial philosophy – more about her views on the Constitution and the rule of law.  We need tough questions and direct answers.

 

As Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a member of the Judiciary Committee, put it:  “It is a confirmation, it’s not a coronation.”

 

We will see.

 

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here. 

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(29)
post a comment
Malthus

posted May 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm


What she believes is of less interest to me than what she knows. I’m not going to marry her, after all. What I primarily care about in a doctor, lawyer, jurist, and engineer is his ability to do the job. Though the fact that all 9 justices will be religious and non-protestant is disturbing, I find it much more disturbing that all but Breyer will be ignorant of important principles of math, science and economics.
Kagan, if appointed, will join the long list of English, History, Government Studies and other wishy-washy majors on the bench. Someday, I hope, we can get over this fake “diversity” talk and get somebody on the bench with some technical knowledge.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 14, 2010 at 5:15 pm


Your not going to marry who?
Who would marry you, by the way you state it in public? Unless there was some topic mentioned in the previous article which represents you were in love with someone and now you want to reject them publically, I don’t find any relavence in that subject matter…You could have handled to her face, wrather than a slap in heart towards her publically!
I certainly would not want to marry anybody so arrogant enough to try and reject somebody internationally, how pathetic….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I need people who love me…Not a man or a boy, whatever you want to call those who are afraid to commit to anything other than a body for pleasure of the moment….p.s. Did all you need was somebody that looked good in a picture? or do you like something a bit more deeper in the heart of the matter………?cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 14, 2010 at 5:21 pm


Who says that I would want to marry you or that I wanted to?
Maybe I prayed to God and asked him to bring me my husband and you just so happenned to be one of them who showed up and you thought you could get a little and I said noway, not unless we were married?
So, get the story straight!!!!!
I need a man, not a boy who likes to act like he is all that, when I could get more out of a movie and a salad by myself…Selfishness will get you the exit door. Unless your the type who likes to use and abuse…..that would not be for me, thank you very much…!
I like the rain, the ocean, a bird walking on the sand…a mountain top in a picture with a bunch of snow on top…rosey cheeks of children, old costumes from movie sets…, cars with wood dashes, people who smile and are genuinly kind , so the mere mention of rejection on a web sight would not be the type I would be interested in….cc



report abuse
 

Mary Coate

posted May 14, 2010 at 9:18 pm


Your name, you are completely missing Malthus’ point. This comment was not directed at whom you would marry, it was just a remark that he felt what she knows is important, not how he feels about her. Sheesh. The topic in question is what Elena Kagan,nominee for the Supreme Court really believes.
I am concerned that we know so little about what she believes. She appears to be hostile to the military, in favor of gay marriage, against gun ownership, and is pro-abortion. These are all positions which cause me to be greatly concerned about this appointment. But then again, I did not really expect President Obama to pick someone who is moderate, since he is not.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 14, 2010 at 10:30 pm


You are not honestly stating Kagon’s positions.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 15, 2010 at 12:23 am


Mary Coate,
I don’t think Elena Kagan is hostile to the military, it is a little more complicated than that. She was hostile to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and attempted to prevent on campus recruitment due to the relentless policy of discrimination needlessly carried out by our military. There have been gay soldiers since the first army was formed and there will continue to be gays in the military as long as there are troops. Gays have served honorably and it is a insult to those soldiers who have put their lives on the line for this country to say otherwise. Discriminating against gays is not what a nation that is “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” should be doing. Lincoln’s words are magnificent, it is time we lived up to them. Yes, we should do that even if those who believe in the religion of primitive and ignorant sheepherders get their panties in a bunch.
Gay marriage, quite frankly it is none of your damn business who someone wants to marry. Absolutely none! I always have to wonder how bigots like you feel they have the right to intrude in the lives of others. Don’t bother with the FOX news channel mantra that it threatens the sanctity of marriage, I have been married 35 years and know that my wife and I alone decide what our marriage is about, not gays down the street, corrupt politicians in DC or little tin gods in the local church. If your marriage is so fragile that it cannot endure a gay couple getting married then one has to ask what kind of marriage you have.
As well, I can only hope she is pro-choice and not a member of the anti-choice militant religious junta that bedevils America. This nation should be guided by true liberty, not by an intrusive and inquisitorial government meddling in the personal medical decisions of the citizenry. As I have heard said, ‘Focus on your owned damned family!’
As for guns, I wish we could get them out of the hands of all citizens. That would take a Constitutional amendment which will never happen in my lifetime, a life that is always threatened by the multitudes of morons trotting around exercising the right to carry a gun. The wonderful thing about humans is our insistence on continuing that which is obviously harmful and dangerous. Sadly, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear, I am sure she will follow the Constitution on this matter. However, rights can and should be constrained in narrow circumstances, i.e. we don’t get to own small tactical nuclear weaponry. I certainly hope you aren’t in favor of citizens owning nukes. (If you aren’t, doesn’t that make you kind of a hypocrite. If you are, Zeus help us!)
I have to laugh though, in your post you made it clear that you are anti-Gay but pro-God and guns, a wonderful combination of hatred, inanity and violence. Your positions, while very common in this dumbed-down Glenn Beck age of half-thinking, are toxic to a free people.



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 15, 2010 at 4:23 am


Rich: “As for guns, I wish we could get them out of the hands of all citizens.”
Interesting, home defense and hunting weapons too? Not sure I could go for that, but neither do I see a widespread need for AK’s with armor piercing bullets.
Rich: “Sadly, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear…”
I don’t think it’s all that clear. The uninfringed right to keep and bear arms was seen as necessary to a free state because the well regulated militia provided their own. I don’t think that’s interpreted as meaning anyone can own a nuclear arsenal or fifty caliber automatic weapons, although refusing ownership obviously infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms. The right can be infringed; we can’t be sure to what extent, purpose, or effect.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 15, 2010 at 5:04 pm


Re: Mary
Geesh, I was not referring to you in my writings….
As for gay marriage, well I always asumed that was for a man and a woman…seeing how the parts fit together…
I am against abortion…the murder of the unborn…
and I am pro-military, seeing how this give us freedom of country with protection from countries who want to murder us….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 15, 2010 at 5:09 pm


assumed
assumed
assumed
To take upon oneself. To undertake the duties of.
presumed
presumed
presumed
To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 16, 2010 at 4:56 pm


If you were honest you would have come up to my face instead of who knows what, sneeking behind my back and saying God knows what…
Thanks for your help.
Honest people don’t have to sneak behind your back and whisper, whisper, whisper, they keep it out in the open..Unless of course your famous, then you have to talk a bit more discreetly about things, but when your talking gossip about a person, it is exactly that…gossip, to try and present yourself as a better person then them, hardly a fine representative of Christ…
Anything that you can say behind a persons back, should be able to be said to their face as well….The mocking, slanderous, selfish individuals who want everything for themselves, are the people I wish to stay away from….
For all the supporters out there, thanks from the bottom of my heart…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 16, 2010 at 4:58 pm


Love your neighbor as yourself…..



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 16, 2010 at 5:21 pm


It is still ok to show up to be my friend and be nice to me, otherwise do not bother….cc



report abuse
 

Scott R.

posted May 17, 2010 at 1:02 am


I voted for Obama so that he would put liberal justices on the Court, not the conservative fascists that the moron who preceeded him did.
G-D, how Beliefnet has taught me to hate conservative Xians – the enemy of freedom and liberty.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 17, 2010 at 11:16 am


“You are not honestly stating Kagon’s positions.”
Nor is Mr. Sekulow honestly describing Planned Parenthood.
But it seems that is the new tactic of the ‘religious’ “right” these days – bear false witness and hope nobody notices.
No wonder they’re no longer respected. If you have to lie to make your point, you’ve already lost the war, nevermind the battle.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted May 17, 2010 at 11:24 am


“She appears to be hostile to the military”
Incorrect. (As usual.) She was defending Harvard’s long-standing anti-discrimination policy, as the previous and subsequent heads did/do.
“in favor of gay marriage”
Gee, treating people equally before the law. Sooo un-American.
“against gun ownership”
I am too if it’s AK-47s in the hands of city-dwellers.
“and is pro-abortion.”
I do believe you meant to type ‘pro-choice’. You and your side would simply force all women to bear unwanted pregnancies. Some compassionate conservatism that is – NOT!



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 17, 2010 at 6:49 pm


HG,
re: the whole gun thing
I actually have to force myself to be in favor of an all out ban of guns. The reason for that is that I grew up in a small town where all of us kids had guns and we used them for hunting, mainly anyway. Of course, we also used them just to blow stuff to smithereens. Nobody got hurt and we would have never dreamed of committing a crime using a gun. So to be honest, I can’t say I have a real problem with those who hunt or target shoot.
However, that was years ago and the world seems to have changed. Living in a suburb of Seattle, I now have to say that I just don’t see too many benefits of people walking around in suburban or urban neighborhoods with a pistol. Plus, having worked in bank branches for nearly 30 years, I gotta say I was never too thrilled about some low-life miscreant actually having the ability to acquire a gun and come point it at me or my staff.
Seems to me that guns in the hands of citizens wreak more havoc than they prevent yet, for a myriad of reasons, we continue on with private gun ownership. If we are killing more people with guns than we are saving, why not just get rid of them all and achieve a net savings in lives? I do recognize that responsible people would lose the right to own guns simply due to the insanely stupid behavior of others.
At one time an armed citizenry was considered as the ultimate deterrent to a wayward government. I doubt it is anymore, a ragtag band of citizens a la the Wolverines in “Red Dawn” would have a hard time going up against predator drones, cruise missiles and Apache helicopters. If people want to keep guns for that purpose it is a pipe dream.
As to what constitutes arms, I am not sure I know, the definition is a semantic puzzle. We know that the amendment was put in place to ensure that citizens would be able to own and use the weapons of that time, how much improvement beyond that before and arm is no longer an arm is probably impossible to say. The founders would have been used to and expected technological improvements, it is hard to imagine them envisioning GPS guidance and ICBMs though.
Bottom line is the any reasonable improvement in public safety is not likely to occur as long as people get to own guns. For me anyway, it just makes sense to throw in the towel and come to grips with the fact that we are just too volatile of a species to safely have these things.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 17, 2010 at 7:55 pm


Don’t worry I will still work really hard at what I do and give it all that I have…..cc



report abuse
 

butch

posted May 17, 2010 at 10:20 pm


people will always figure out a way to take other people’s lives. a gun is a tool, it makes no decisions on it’s own.what about the stats that seem to be saying where gun ownership is allowed crime goes down?will criminals turn in their guns?
dont want a pregnacy?— dont have sex.a baby has rights too



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 18, 2010 at 12:37 am


Butch,
You are obviously a deep thinker. Your “dont want a pregnacy?— dont have sex…” really addresses quite well those cases where a woman was raped.
There is something odd about gun nuts claiming to be pro-life. Guns kill lots of people after they are born but by then you don’t seem to care.
And what is this stuff about crime going down where guns are allowed? Guns are allowed throughout the US. Crime rates rise and fall based upon lots of factors. American citizens have had guns since the beginning of this country, given your premise wouldn’t our armed citizens have reduced the crime rate close to zero over the last 200 years? Maybe it is the other way around, the mass production of guns at relatively cheap prices have spurred wanton violence in lock step with the increase in sales.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 18, 2010 at 3:35 pm


Your name of 5:04 on May 15 said,
“As for gay marriage, well I always asumed that was for a man and a woman.”
S/he actually typed that.
S/he added the superfluous “..seeing how the parts fit together…”. Most gay couples will tell you that their parts fit together pretty good too.
Not that these have anything to do with Elena Kagan’s views.



report abuse
 

HG

posted May 18, 2010 at 5:39 pm


It’s a tough call, using force of arms, individually and globally. Without the ability to compensate for physical inferiority, we get back to the law of the jungle very quickly. We got from sticks and stones to the atom bomb pretty quickly too though, and now we all face extermination at the pull of a trigger.
Boris made a comment along the lines of ‘guns and gods don’t kill people…people with guns and gods kill people’, but it seems to have been deleted now. I’m back to thinking this site deletes comments at will along subjective guidelines. Not good, not open.
As for butch’s comment that people shouldn’t have sex unless they want children, well, I don’t believe we can legitimately demand such behavior. Sex is a natural, biological act which most often occurs despite not wanting parenthood as a result. We can alter the resultant birth rate to more closely match our willingness and ability to provide for children.



report abuse
 

Rich

posted May 18, 2010 at 6:36 pm


HG,
I read Boris’ comment and can see no reason that it should have been deleted. It don’t recall that it was offensive or contained any of the prohibited words that we all use everyday anyway. Censorship seems to be a poor way to let individuals discuss issues. If someone is going to censor our comments, perhaps they should just tell us in advance what is appropriate to think so we know what to post. It was make it so much easier.
re: arms issue
Don’t worry too much about being bombed back to the stone age. If I understand it right we have neutron bombs, they kill lots of folks but leave the buildings and infrastructure intact. Sure, there will be lots of corpses all over the place and that does make thing a bit awkward for everyone. However, there is a bright side, the scant survivors can be fruitful and multiply and the next generation can move right in to all those untouched homes, hopefully mortgage free.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 18, 2010 at 9:36 pm


Re Your Name:
Lie to make your point, what?
Religious right?
Your tacking lies to a group without anything?
End of story….



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 19, 2010 at 2:06 pm


Anything that you so claim….
So they want to save babies, cut taxes and try and get the government to roll into financial gain again?
How is that so bad to the other side of the tracks, sounds pretty good to me……



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 20, 2010 at 11:54 pm


What you did not like the truth?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 21, 2010 at 5:12 pm


Truth hurts sometimes. Sometimes it is best to just keep your mouth shut, when people can not handle the truth. So, we move on to a better place in life and let go of the things which hurt, and look for a brighter future…..Give it your best, that’s what I always say. To give to the things, which are important….cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted May 22, 2010 at 3:34 pm


Veggies and fruit…eat up my dear children…If you can get organic, those are best…cc



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted June 28, 2010 at 11:50 am


Jay,
What would impress me is if potential judge Kagan recognizes that the Constitiution gives no powers to the judiciary to separate the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression from free American citizens in any public or private venue or in the free marketplace of ideas for any reason. The following is an extended view of how freedom is more relevant than addiction to intellectual ideas and theories and how perceived ideas of truth threaten freedom and, in my opinion, violate Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, especially regarding the climate the Church Vs State ruling causes in our public schools.
Truth is an interesting word. To me, the most accurate definition of truth is someone’s perception that he or she has reached an accurate conclusion that he or she believes cannot be disputed based on the available evidence. The claim that someone’s “truth” is absolute should always be met with skepticism. Science tends to dismiss the “based on the available evidence” idea and state conclusions that are intellectually stamped with approval by the men and women with sufficient access to evidence under examination. Science as intellectual dogma implies that people will not be allowed to state that science will always be limited in the accuracy of the information it gathers by limits we have in perceiving the physical world. These limits are so great due to our access to such a small percentage of the physical universe (viewing it and studying the universe from afar is not access) and our limited ability to affect that physical world. Science has had many changes to it’s beliefs and theories over its history and will continue to do so as new information comes in. To blindly believe every scientific theory is foolish. To surrender your personal freedoms to a theory like evolution is absolutely preposterous. What we have to avoid in our sciences is a metamorphosis of loss where we lose the value and independence of human life to science.
Science, like everything else involved in the examination of the physical world, is always in flux and is changing with every new discovery. Questioning the accuracy of scientific information and how it is presented is healthy skepticism. A free exchange of ideas in both the public and private arenas is absolutely imperative to maintain freedom in our society. Disagreement is vital to freedom. In my opinion, that is one of the reasons why Church vs State was such an overstepping of powers by the Supreme Court. The idea that the Supreme Court has any right to make a ruling to remove the free expression of faith in God anywhere in the country in either the public or private domain is not supported by the spirit of freedom and protection of individual rights demanded by the Constitution (the spirit of freedom as expressed in the Constitution is every bit as important as any literal interpretations of the words in the Constitution. In fact, I would say it’s more important.). Freedom is the vital essence of who America is. It gives us our advantages over the rest of the world. And Freedom of Religion is directly protected in the Constitution (as all freedoms should be). The idea of creating a state religion of atheism (by censoring all religious freedom of expression anyplace in America public or private) is not valid. America cannot declare a state religion. In my opinion, the Church vs State ruling has created a de facto state religion of atheism in the public school system.
The fact that a founding father (Thomas Jefferson) had a personal belief regarding Church and State he was fond of is irrelevant with respect to the freedoms guaranteed every American citizen in the Constitution. The harm to personal freedoms of censorship in action as a result of the Church vs State case is what’s relevant. The hostile atmosphere to the free marketplace of ideas in the classroom and the intimidation and fear that censorship causes is relevant. And it is being attempted to extend this censorship to forbidding all public mention of God anywhere in the country. Truth, which has always been and will always be so subjective in the world, is being claimed as the force of rightful subjugation of opposing viewpoints. Truth, used in such a context, is a fraud. Public schools are not the province of intellectuals to dictate what children will learn and censor the rest. It is the province of Americans to decide what they want their children to learn and have the right to demand that they have the opportunity to learn it (the core of Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Science, and History are understood to be necessary). That’s what electives are for.
Censorship causes confusion, fear, intimidation and a sense of isolation for the students who believe in God who know their personal beliefs are not tolerated. In my opinion, those students are in a classroom which is practicing discrimination. If one student feels he or she is being discriminated against because of his or her religious beliefs by the climate of censorship in public schools, that’s too many. Why don’t we force children who believe in God to take separate busses or eat in separate cafeterias just to emphasize the point?
Only through universal free speech and free expression are all the different groups in America (including religious groups, of course) able to express themselves and defend themselves. The government is obligated to protect the freedom of all citizens; not take sides. Not to force one citizen’s views or rights over another’s or to suppress any individual or group’s Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression because of their personal beliefs. Allowing the loss of rights and freedoms of any citizen or group of citizens to universal Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression mimics the Nazi pattern of attack against the Jewish people which started with the suppression of rights, campaigns against the credibility of the Jewish people and, eventually, direct attack against the Jewish people. You never want to take the first step down that road (suppression of rights). Not an acceptable pattern of behavior against any group of citizens in a free country which guarantees the rights and freedoms of all. Any person or group of people who are treated differently under the law as a result of their personal beliefs are being discriminated against.
The free marketplace of ideas in American public schools is absolutely indispensable. Today, in my opinion, our children are sitting in a Communist-style dictatorial classroom in a hostile intellectual and cultural climate of forced atheism. Denying them access to elective courses in religion and totally banning Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression of religious topics is like taking children who believe in God and locking them in an intellectually and culturally oppressive box. A free American, sitting in a classroom, cannot be discriminated against for expressing his or her personal beliefs. That is the hostile climate that censorship forces on them and does direct harm to the cultural freedom of the United States. The Constitution is not a document that allows discrimination. Everyone has the right to express his or her own personal beliefs. Religious beliefs, discussions, and the respectful teaching of those religious beliefs by people who genuinely believe in God has been a cultural centerpiece in human life for centuries. Censorship of those cultural aspects of life are an intellectual lie about the past. And it is a direct violation of Constitutional freedoms that embrace Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression. Censorship destroys the dynamic learning environment that the free marketplace of ideas provides. Public school is supposed to be a safe place of learning, not one where students fear which right to learn or which right to speak they will lose next. In my opinion censorship, applied like this to children, is a form of cultural bullying. If the only future we can show our children is how obsessively their parents fight to limit the rights and freedoms of children, we show them a very bleak future indeed. Children are not political pawns in a free society.
Students who believe in God have as much right to attend a public school as any other child. These are children in a free society with their whole lives ahead of them. They deserve much better. Tolerance of different views about issues in the world and Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression need to shine like twin beacons of light and hope in the classrooms of children in a free society. Censorship is the dark cloud of intolerance and suppression of rights and freedoms. Children certainly don’t deserve intellectual intimidation and manipulation. No one does. Any form of censorship that suppresses the free marketplace of ideas in a classroom of free American children is intellectual manipulation and intimidation. Especially when it focuses on a select group of students on the basis of their religious beliefs and expressions. That is discrimination. There is no acceptable form of discrimination. There is no acceptable location for discrimination. Children who believe in God in public schools suffer in their forced silence in a state of perpetual intellectual and cultural punishment. This is not a state of “domestic tranquility” for these children. Not one child’s freedoms are safe in those classrooms as long as discrimination is allowed to be practiced against any one of them.
In a free society, the perception of the “weight of evidence” being more heavily in favor of one side or the other is irrelevant when it comes to public and private discussions involving the free marketplace of ideas (every topic under the sun). Censoring opinions and beliefs are the height of intolerance and are the hallmarks of the loss of perspective of what it is to be American and be free. Americans who understand freedom understand that all freedoms need to be supported. Any freedoms lost by one American to speak freely and express freely (this does not include inappropriate physical contact, of course) jeopardizes the freedom of all. Intellectual subjugation (like forcing people to learn about evolution while specifically censoring all religious expression) is not a legitimate use of authority in a free society. No freedom to speak equals no freedom.
Freedom is the primary relevant issue in the Constitution. Freedom is the very reason that America was founded. Freedom to disagree and freedom to express is at the heart of a robust, free nation. In my opinion, the spirit of freedom in the Constitution requires Supreme Court justices to protect the rights and freedoms of all American citizens above all other concerns. And a free marketplace of ideas in our public schools is essential to those freedoms. Only when a free marketplace of ideas and universal Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression are freely practiced everywhere in America and Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly and the Freedom to Petition are all fully in force is discrimination eliminated.
In my opinion, in a Constitutional case, the Supreme Court cannot decide in favor of one citizen to remove the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of the other citizen. There is no Constitutional freedom for one citizen to censor another, especially one resulting in a collective suppression of the rights and freedoms of all Americans who have the same beliefs as the litigant who lost. In my opinion, in an incident where someone opposes worship of God in public or private because of it’s religious content, when you make it a Constitutional case with a result (whether intentional or not) of suppressing Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Speech of the opposing litigant and all like-minded people in the country, it is a wild legal exaggeration of scope that lays the groundwork for religious intolerance. That is the creation of a totalitarianist environment dedicated to suppression and control, using a document (the Constitution) dedicated to prevent that result. The Constitution, a document dedicated to protecting the freedoms of all Americans, was not written to be used or amended to unilaterally remove any rights or freedoms of an American citizen or group of American citizens for any reason. The Constitution is a commitment in writing from the American government to its people to preserve the rights and freedoms of the American people. Securing the blessings of liberty is a promise that is totally incongruous to any amendment that establishes discrimination and/or censorship of someone’s expression of his or her personal beliefs. Freedom, properly protected, flows like silk in the wind. It is dynamic, glorious and unassailable. The original rights promised to every American citizen must be upheld.
Evolution as an intellectual addiction has already caused great harm in the 20th century. Adolf Hitler in World War II was addicted to evolution in the form of Germans being the “Master Race”. This Nazi intellectual addiction led to the death of 6 million Jewish people who the Germans used as their “enemies of the state” in order to intimidate the rest of the population (an atmosphere of this is what happens to you if you don’t go along with the program). They blamed the Jewish people for every problem in their society and regularly practiced character assassination of the Jewish people. There was no credence given to the God-given human dimension of spirituality that makes us answerable for our violations of human life when we arrive in the Afterlife, so there was no sense of restriction to the destruction of human life. It was all about discrimination, power and authority. We cannot allow that intellectual shroud of hostility and intolerance to descend upon America. The perceived right to treat children in public schools who believe in God like second class citizens through censorship can open the door to more egregious violations of their rights down the road. In my opinion, the Court cannot set aside any area of America and say that a free American’s rights can be violated here. There are no acceptable places to practice discrimination. The argument which establishes discrimination (even when discrimination is not the intent of the argument) becomes irrelevant when discrimination is the end result. In a Constitutional case, the argument invalidates itself when it establishes discrimination, whether the discrimination happens before the case, after the case or as a result of the case. There are plenty of examples where censorship of religious topics, religious organizations, religious items and religious events has been enforced in public schools as a result of the Church Vs State ruling. Individual Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens are always primary and peripheral arguments against those rights are always secondary in a Constitutional case. Otherwise, there is no way for American citizens to keep their freedoms. Legal decisions become an incremental weight of defenselessness for American citizens. The Constitution becomes a document of empty promises and false representations. The world knows that an America that loses her ideals loses her greatness, for we would no longer be united for the freedoms of all with the energy and passion that comes with that freedom. Freedom is the ultimate energy source. We become damaged and weakened without it. Individual rights must be able to stand. The Constitution was definitely not written to be a vehicle to use legal decisions to erode individual rights or establish discrimination. The intent of the document is clearly for the protection of inviolable rights and freedoms owned by every American citizen. Freedom of Religion was specifically identified as one of those inviolable freedoms.
Schools in free societies are supposed to be the ultimate free marketplace of ideas. Only through universal free speech and freedom of expression will individual freedoms be honored under the original spirit of the Constitution which demands freedom for all. Otherwise, oppression is the result. If you take one group of citizens and begin to limit thier rights, you begin to follow the unacceptable Nazi example. Freedom is a state of being for each individual free American invented for Americans by Americans and owned by each free American. The Constitution guarantees these freedoms. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Petition and Freedom of Expression. These are paramount pillars of Constitutionally guaranteed American freedoms that are not surrendered for any peripheral arguments. The insistence of teaching evolution with the specific exclusion of the teaching of God and the banning of any content about God is the definition of intolerance. And based upon the Nazi experience as precedent, it is also an example of poor judgement. America as a free nation requires that this situation be reversed. The Supreme Court should do the right thing and end this intolerant practice. Evolution and Religion can both be taught and freely expressed. Americans as free individuals can make their own decisions about each. Positive intellectual contributions involve enhancing the quality of human life and the freedom of human expression. It does not involve creating cages for people we disagree with.



report abuse
 

Who's name

posted June 28, 2010 at 4:37 pm


BWAH-HAH-HAH. Sorry Daniel, but I don’t have time to cover all the errors in fact and logic, so, bwah-hah-hah is my response.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.