In its ongoing fight against creeping Sharia law, and the influences of Islam, the state legislature today introduced a bill to ban Arabic numerals in the state's schools. Citing citizen complaints and the fear of the growing influence the imposition of such foreign teachings, bill sponsors said they will continue fighting to rid our schools of all Islamic teachings.
"I never would have thought that our teachers would have been taken in by such an insidious plot as the use of foreign, Islamic, Arabic numerals," bill sponsor Willie Bob Peckerwood said. "It's a slippery slope. First you introduce Arabic numerals, then you move on to Arabic language, before you know it our children are bowing five times a day to Mecca and reading from the Q'aran."
Peckerwood was surprised to find that all of the state's schools were already using Arabic numerals in their math classes, as well as several other classes. "I don't know how this got by us," he continued, "They already snuck in these God forsaken foreign influences trying to turn our children against us. We're behind in this fight, but we are catching up fast."
The bill is expected to receive bipartisan support in the legislature as members of both parties are lining up to get on the record as opposing anything that would be seen as supporting terror or being Anti-American.
Legislator Nancy Goodkind, usually seen as Peckerwood's political nemesis, joined in with praise for Peckerwood's bill. "When I first heard of this bill, I couldn't believe that our schools would be dumb enough to use Arabic numerals. But once I found out that Arabic numerals were already being found throughout our schools, I was quick to join on to support this bill and protect our children. Why can't we use the good old American numbers we all grew up with?" Goodkind added.
Early polls show that the measure is widely popular with the electorate with over 80% supporting the ban.
The bill is expected to sail through committee and could be up for a vote among the entire legislature within the week. There is no comment from the Governor's office as to whether the Governor will sign the measure or not. However, sources say that it would be hard to oppose such a popular measure.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Monday, July 15, 2013
What George Zimmerman Tells Us About Ourselves
"Which one of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." - Luke 10: 36-37 (New Revised Standard Bible)
Every once in a while events happen that can best be explained, to me anyway, as happening only by God's Providence. That is why, I believe, that across this nation on the morning after the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial that millions of Americans attending their church services had as their Gospel reading the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We are all familiar with the story of the man beset by robbers and left bloodied and for dead, who is passed by both a Priest and a Levite who offer him no help. It is only the lowly Samaritan who saves the man, treats his wounds and cares for him until well. Jesus offers this as an example to a inquisitive lawyer (imagine that!) as to living the law of God to love one's neighbor as one's self.
It struck me as particularly poignant that this would be the Gospel lesson on the day after the conclusion of such a bitterly divisive and inflammatory trial. Throughout the night and into the morning, our airwaves were full of pundits offering opinions about the not guilty verdict, social media was exploding with outrage from those who understandably felt Zimmerman should be punished for killing an unarmed black minor, and less understandable celebrations for those who were rooting him on (whatever you feel about the evidence, celebrating the death of a child will never make sense to me).
My first reaction following the verdict, which to me personally was a disappointment because of what the case said about the state of our society and our laws, was to turn to prayer. I immediately opened the electronic kindle version of the Book of Common Prayer that I keep on my iPhone. During what has become my spiritual reawakening in the just more than a year I have spent in the Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer has been an indispensable guide for faith and living. I looked for a prayer which would encapsulate my feelings and address the fears I had of violence that could come from this. Here's what I found:
Grant, O God, that your holy and life-giving Spirit may so move every human heart and especially the hearts of the people of this land, that barriers which divide us may crumble, suspicions disappear, and hatreds cease; that our divisions being healed, we may live in justice and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. - Book of Common Prayer, p. 823
I prayed this prayer silently to myself, and shared it with my friends on social media. I prayed then for the family of Trayvon Martin whose life was once again shattered, I prayed for the family of George Zimmerman and for George Zimmerman himself, that his heart, hardened for whatever reason, could know peace and love and that his life could turn to one of serving his fellow man.
The next morning what struck me the most as I listened to the words of the Gospel read by my Deacon at Holy Eucharist, was how we as a society treat our neighbor. We are falling far short of living the law, not of self-defense or stand your ground, but the law which Christ gave for us. The law that the lawyer could recite as the key to eternal life -- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."
Whatever your view of what transpired on the night Trayvon Martin was killed, love was certainly lacking. Love does not treat its neighbor with suspicion because of the color of his skin or the way that he is dressed. Love does not meet an encounter between strangers with violence and rage. Love does not refer to its neighbors with racial epithets and insults. Love does not take a life.
There has been plenty said of the actions of both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on that fateful night, and there will be plenty more as our collective rage justifies more outrage, insult, and pain from all sides. But what there hasn't been talked about very much is what George Zimmerman tells us about ourselves.
From the little that is known about that night, what it appears that George Zimmerman did was to see a tall, young, black-skinned man, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and based on his experience, prejudices, and beliefs, and the totality of the situation saw him as a threat. He felt so threatened that he called 9-1-1 and reported this suspicious person. He followed him, armed, and ready to use deadly force if it became necessary. And finally, for whatever reason, ended up in a physical confrontation during which he said he feared for his life, and shot and killed the young man.
At his trial on charges of Second Degree Murder, Zimmerman claimed self defense. The jury found him not guilty under this theory. And if we want to look at it objectively, the jury upheld the law in Florida as it is written.
But how many of us who condemn the actions of George Zimmerman excuse or even celebrate similar actions when they are taken on our behalf by our own government. Did George Zimmerman do anything different than our President, through his policy of drone warfare does every day? It is known that through "signature strikes" that American drone pilots target individuals based on circumstances that include their location, their sex, their clothing, etc. Isn't this exactly what George Zimmerman did that night in Florida? Our government brands these individuals based only on these external factors as "militants" even though, just like Zimmerman, they don't even know who the individual they are targeting is, or anything about their intentions. Just like Zimmerman, we Americans justify these actions through arguments of self defense and the prevention of harm to others.
I was struck by the words of an Arab American who tweeted Friday night, echoing or parodying the words of our President about Trayvon Martin, "If I had a son, he would look like Abdulrahman Awlaki" referring to the 16-year-old American citizen who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen two weeks after his father, also an American citizen, was killed similarly in a U.S. drone strike.
The fact of the matter is, that we as a nation, are failing to live up to the beliefs that a vast majority of us claim. We are failing to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And despite the claims of the so-called Christians of our land, many of whom were all over social media this weekend fomenting the fires of hatred, it is not because of gays, or prayer in public schools, or the posting of the Ten Commandments in public squares, or whether we say "Merry Christmas" that our nation is failing to live up to our collective Faith. It is due to the lack of Love and the treatment of our neighbor.
As long as we accept policies and laws which result in the death of our fellow human beings without justification and without reason, we are failing to live up to the law that our Savior has given us. As long as we treat others with suspicion and disgust, we go against God's law. As long as we justify hatred, discrimination, and persecution based on race, religion, status, gender, sexual orientation, or difference, we fail as Christians.
In fact, as long as we do so, we can collectively say that we all are George Zimmerman.
Every once in a while events happen that can best be explained, to me anyway, as happening only by God's Providence. That is why, I believe, that across this nation on the morning after the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial that millions of Americans attending their church services had as their Gospel reading the parable of the Good Samaritan.
We are all familiar with the story of the man beset by robbers and left bloodied and for dead, who is passed by both a Priest and a Levite who offer him no help. It is only the lowly Samaritan who saves the man, treats his wounds and cares for him until well. Jesus offers this as an example to a inquisitive lawyer (imagine that!) as to living the law of God to love one's neighbor as one's self.
It struck me as particularly poignant that this would be the Gospel lesson on the day after the conclusion of such a bitterly divisive and inflammatory trial. Throughout the night and into the morning, our airwaves were full of pundits offering opinions about the not guilty verdict, social media was exploding with outrage from those who understandably felt Zimmerman should be punished for killing an unarmed black minor, and less understandable celebrations for those who were rooting him on (whatever you feel about the evidence, celebrating the death of a child will never make sense to me).
My first reaction following the verdict, which to me personally was a disappointment because of what the case said about the state of our society and our laws, was to turn to prayer. I immediately opened the electronic kindle version of the Book of Common Prayer that I keep on my iPhone. During what has become my spiritual reawakening in the just more than a year I have spent in the Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer has been an indispensable guide for faith and living. I looked for a prayer which would encapsulate my feelings and address the fears I had of violence that could come from this. Here's what I found:
Grant, O God, that your holy and life-giving Spirit may so move every human heart and especially the hearts of the people of this land, that barriers which divide us may crumble, suspicions disappear, and hatreds cease; that our divisions being healed, we may live in justice and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. - Book of Common Prayer, p. 823
I prayed this prayer silently to myself, and shared it with my friends on social media. I prayed then for the family of Trayvon Martin whose life was once again shattered, I prayed for the family of George Zimmerman and for George Zimmerman himself, that his heart, hardened for whatever reason, could know peace and love and that his life could turn to one of serving his fellow man.
The next morning what struck me the most as I listened to the words of the Gospel read by my Deacon at Holy Eucharist, was how we as a society treat our neighbor. We are falling far short of living the law, not of self-defense or stand your ground, but the law which Christ gave for us. The law that the lawyer could recite as the key to eternal life -- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."
Whatever your view of what transpired on the night Trayvon Martin was killed, love was certainly lacking. Love does not treat its neighbor with suspicion because of the color of his skin or the way that he is dressed. Love does not meet an encounter between strangers with violence and rage. Love does not refer to its neighbors with racial epithets and insults. Love does not take a life.
There has been plenty said of the actions of both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on that fateful night, and there will be plenty more as our collective rage justifies more outrage, insult, and pain from all sides. But what there hasn't been talked about very much is what George Zimmerman tells us about ourselves.
From the little that is known about that night, what it appears that George Zimmerman did was to see a tall, young, black-skinned man, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and based on his experience, prejudices, and beliefs, and the totality of the situation saw him as a threat. He felt so threatened that he called 9-1-1 and reported this suspicious person. He followed him, armed, and ready to use deadly force if it became necessary. And finally, for whatever reason, ended up in a physical confrontation during which he said he feared for his life, and shot and killed the young man.
At his trial on charges of Second Degree Murder, Zimmerman claimed self defense. The jury found him not guilty under this theory. And if we want to look at it objectively, the jury upheld the law in Florida as it is written.
But how many of us who condemn the actions of George Zimmerman excuse or even celebrate similar actions when they are taken on our behalf by our own government. Did George Zimmerman do anything different than our President, through his policy of drone warfare does every day? It is known that through "signature strikes" that American drone pilots target individuals based on circumstances that include their location, their sex, their clothing, etc. Isn't this exactly what George Zimmerman did that night in Florida? Our government brands these individuals based only on these external factors as "militants" even though, just like Zimmerman, they don't even know who the individual they are targeting is, or anything about their intentions. Just like Zimmerman, we Americans justify these actions through arguments of self defense and the prevention of harm to others.
I was struck by the words of an Arab American who tweeted Friday night, echoing or parodying the words of our President about Trayvon Martin, "If I had a son, he would look like Abdulrahman Awlaki" referring to the 16-year-old American citizen who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen two weeks after his father, also an American citizen, was killed similarly in a U.S. drone strike.
The fact of the matter is, that we as a nation, are failing to live up to the beliefs that a vast majority of us claim. We are failing to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And despite the claims of the so-called Christians of our land, many of whom were all over social media this weekend fomenting the fires of hatred, it is not because of gays, or prayer in public schools, or the posting of the Ten Commandments in public squares, or whether we say "Merry Christmas" that our nation is failing to live up to our collective Faith. It is due to the lack of Love and the treatment of our neighbor.
As long as we accept policies and laws which result in the death of our fellow human beings without justification and without reason, we are failing to live up to the law that our Savior has given us. As long as we treat others with suspicion and disgust, we go against God's law. As long as we justify hatred, discrimination, and persecution based on race, religion, status, gender, sexual orientation, or difference, we fail as Christians.
In fact, as long as we do so, we can collectively say that we all are George Zimmerman.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Heroic Stands on Same Sex Marriage Could Hold Back Legalization
Stands like that of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane are courageous symbols for elected officials to take as the nation struggles ever so slowly to reach complete marriage equality nationwide. However, such heroic stands may actually end up delaying the ultimate nationwide recognition of same sex marriage.
In the recent Supreme Court decisions on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's voter initiative banning same sex marriage, Proposition 8, the issue of standing came up in both cases. In both the DOMA case and the Proposition 8 case, the normal appellants (the parties who were sued and lost the case at the trial level) refused to file appeals of their losses. In DOMA, this was the Attorney General Eric Holder, and in Proposition 8 it was the State of California represented by Attorney General Kamela Harris. Both of these decisions were historic and incredibly unusual in that it almost never happens that a representative of the sued party decides part way through the proceedings that the law they are charged with upholding is unconstitutional and therefore refuse to defend it.
In the two cases, different groups rose to the occasion to appeal the lower court decisions and thereby defend the laws as written. In DOMA, Congressional Republicans hired their own counsel and filed the appeal on behalf of the United States. In the Prop 8 case, it was citizens groups which had organized turnout and worked to get the amendment on the ballot in California. In each case, the outcome was different. In the DOMA case the Court found that the appellants had standing to appeal, while in the Prop 8 case the court found that the appellants did not.
Standing, or the right to bring an appeal, was a hard fought issue in both cases. If the court had reached a different consensus on the issue of standing in the DOMA case, and the lower court rulings were left in place, what would have happened was that we would have been left with a mish mash of lower court rulings, some upholding the constitutionality of DOMA and some not, leaving the issue unresolved.
But, what is more interesting is had the State of California decided to pursue the appeal in the Proposition 8 case, in which the court found that citizens groups had no standing to appeal challenges to the Constitutionality of a state statute, there would have been no issue of standing at all. California certainly had the right to defend its own laws against constitutional challenge. That would have forced the court to address the constitutionality of state bans on same sex marriage on the basis of violations of the guarantees of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Looking at the court's holding on DOMA, finding that it did in fact violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee to equal protection on a Federal level, it is more than likely that the Court would have found that California's Proposition 8 also violated the imposition of this guarantee on the states, making same sex marriage legal nationwide.
There could be, depending on your point of view, arguments made that this was a fortunate decision on the part of the State of California not to defend this law. Because it allowed the court to move incrementally, essentially punting the decision on the application of the Constitutional issues on state law to a later date when the Supreme Court decision would have time to catch up to public opinion, some would argue that it is overall a good thing for the proponents of marriage equality and the nation as a whole. Some could also argue that the standing issue may have also prevented the court from striking down the 9th circuit's opinion finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, which would have been a big loss for the proponents of marriage equality.
However, at some point, a state is going to have to defend such Constitutional challenge in order for there to be a definitive answer on the application of these rights nationwide. By not defending the lawsuit brought against the State of Pennsylvania, the state Attorney General risks having at best a similar outcome to that of Proposition 8 -- a District Court decision which cannot be appealed due to the lack of standing of anyone to appeal it. This is great for folks in Pennsylvania, but doesn't really push the issue forward.
This also brings up another issue as it relates to the function of the law as a whole. Very often attorneys are faced with the question, "How can you defend someone like that?" or "How can you defend someone you know is guilty?" Spending many years as a criminal defense attorney, I am very familiar with those questions and I understand completely the answers. The fact is that our system of justice only works in both sides in an adversarial system are represented zealously and to the full extent of the law. Any failure to do so, results in legal error and injustice. For instance, if a criminal defense attorney were to fail to put forth all of the defenses that his or her client is due because he or she has come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty or should be put away, not only should that attorney lose their license, but the case will almost certainly be overturned on appeal (and should be), and the defendant who would have otherwise been convicted will likely walk free. The only way to ensure a conviction is to put forth every defense to which the defendant is entitled and make sure that the State proves their case against the Defendant. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the way the law works in an adversarial system such as ours.
In the same way, the only way that the ultimate question in marriage equality -- the issue of whether the Court's holding that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, also applies through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states -- will make it before the Supreme Court is for the states to defend their laws vigorously and to the full extent of the law. I would go so far to say that it is the duty of the state and federal Attorneys General to do so. By acting in the role that should be reserved for the appellate judges, rather than in the role for which they were elected or appointed (to defend and enforce the laws of their state or country) they are showing an amazing lack of confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, and actually holding back the cause in which they claim belief.
In the recent Supreme Court decisions on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's voter initiative banning same sex marriage, Proposition 8, the issue of standing came up in both cases. In both the DOMA case and the Proposition 8 case, the normal appellants (the parties who were sued and lost the case at the trial level) refused to file appeals of their losses. In DOMA, this was the Attorney General Eric Holder, and in Proposition 8 it was the State of California represented by Attorney General Kamela Harris. Both of these decisions were historic and incredibly unusual in that it almost never happens that a representative of the sued party decides part way through the proceedings that the law they are charged with upholding is unconstitutional and therefore refuse to defend it.
In the two cases, different groups rose to the occasion to appeal the lower court decisions and thereby defend the laws as written. In DOMA, Congressional Republicans hired their own counsel and filed the appeal on behalf of the United States. In the Prop 8 case, it was citizens groups which had organized turnout and worked to get the amendment on the ballot in California. In each case, the outcome was different. In the DOMA case the Court found that the appellants had standing to appeal, while in the Prop 8 case the court found that the appellants did not.
Standing, or the right to bring an appeal, was a hard fought issue in both cases. If the court had reached a different consensus on the issue of standing in the DOMA case, and the lower court rulings were left in place, what would have happened was that we would have been left with a mish mash of lower court rulings, some upholding the constitutionality of DOMA and some not, leaving the issue unresolved.
But, what is more interesting is had the State of California decided to pursue the appeal in the Proposition 8 case, in which the court found that citizens groups had no standing to appeal challenges to the Constitutionality of a state statute, there would have been no issue of standing at all. California certainly had the right to defend its own laws against constitutional challenge. That would have forced the court to address the constitutionality of state bans on same sex marriage on the basis of violations of the guarantees of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Looking at the court's holding on DOMA, finding that it did in fact violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee to equal protection on a Federal level, it is more than likely that the Court would have found that California's Proposition 8 also violated the imposition of this guarantee on the states, making same sex marriage legal nationwide.
There could be, depending on your point of view, arguments made that this was a fortunate decision on the part of the State of California not to defend this law. Because it allowed the court to move incrementally, essentially punting the decision on the application of the Constitutional issues on state law to a later date when the Supreme Court decision would have time to catch up to public opinion, some would argue that it is overall a good thing for the proponents of marriage equality and the nation as a whole. Some could also argue that the standing issue may have also prevented the court from striking down the 9th circuit's opinion finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, which would have been a big loss for the proponents of marriage equality.
However, at some point, a state is going to have to defend such Constitutional challenge in order for there to be a definitive answer on the application of these rights nationwide. By not defending the lawsuit brought against the State of Pennsylvania, the state Attorney General risks having at best a similar outcome to that of Proposition 8 -- a District Court decision which cannot be appealed due to the lack of standing of anyone to appeal it. This is great for folks in Pennsylvania, but doesn't really push the issue forward.
This also brings up another issue as it relates to the function of the law as a whole. Very often attorneys are faced with the question, "How can you defend someone like that?" or "How can you defend someone you know is guilty?" Spending many years as a criminal defense attorney, I am very familiar with those questions and I understand completely the answers. The fact is that our system of justice only works in both sides in an adversarial system are represented zealously and to the full extent of the law. Any failure to do so, results in legal error and injustice. For instance, if a criminal defense attorney were to fail to put forth all of the defenses that his or her client is due because he or she has come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty or should be put away, not only should that attorney lose their license, but the case will almost certainly be overturned on appeal (and should be), and the defendant who would have otherwise been convicted will likely walk free. The only way to ensure a conviction is to put forth every defense to which the defendant is entitled and make sure that the State proves their case against the Defendant. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the way the law works in an adversarial system such as ours.
In the same way, the only way that the ultimate question in marriage equality -- the issue of whether the Court's holding that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, also applies through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states -- will make it before the Supreme Court is for the states to defend their laws vigorously and to the full extent of the law. I would go so far to say that it is the duty of the state and federal Attorneys General to do so. By acting in the role that should be reserved for the appellate judges, rather than in the role for which they were elected or appointed (to defend and enforce the laws of their state or country) they are showing an amazing lack of confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, and actually holding back the cause in which they claim belief.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)