Dakota Beacon

ALEXANDRIA, VA -- In recent days, we have witnessed an assault on the freedom of students to express religious ideas freely and openly, an assault that would never occur if students' opinions on any other subject were involved.

In Kountze, Texas, School Superintendent Kevin Waldon, after consulting with lawyers, banned the district's cheerleaders from putting Bible verses on the banners they hoist at the beginning of football games; his concern was that the signs amounted to school-sanctioned religious expression. A group of the cheerleaders and their parents sued Mr. Waldron and the district. In October, a judge issued a temporary injunction, barring the district from prohibiting the banners for the rest of the football season while the case proceeds to trial.

Governor Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott have criticized the district's ban on the signs and registered their dismay. The cheerleaders' case centers on whether the banners amount to private speech protected by state and federal laws, or whether they are government-sponsored speech that can be regulated and censored. Lawyers for the students argued that the banners were private speech because the cheerleaders created the messages after school without guidance or financial assistance from administrators.

Attorney General Abbott said the district's action against the students was improper. He argued that the banners were protected by a state law that requires school districts to treat student expression of religious views in the same manner as secular views. That law, signed by Mr. Perry in 2007, is called the Religious Viewpoint Antidiscrimination Act.

"We're a nation that's built on the concept of free expression of ideas," Governor Perry said. "We're also a culture built upon the concept that the original law is God's law, outlined in the Ten Commandments. If you think about it, the Kountze cheerleaders simply wanted to call a little attention to their faith and to their Lord."

The superintendent said the lawyers he had consulted advised him to prohibit the signs. The advice was based on a Supreme Court ruling in 2000 in another Texas case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, stating that prayers led by students at high school football games were unconstitutional. Mr. Abbott's office said the ruling did not apply in the cheerleaders' case; the office intervened in the lawsuit, in part, to defend the constitutionality of the 2007 state antidiscrimination law.

When a Texas court issued a temporary injunction allowing the cheerleaders to display their banners for at least the remainder of the season, Jeffrey Mateer, general counsel of Liberty Institute, a national legal organization that seeks to defend and restore religious liberty, and Erin Leu, a constitutional attorney at the Liberty Institute, stated, "Free speech prevailed, reminding us of the well-established principle that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

When the Supreme Court struck down school-sponsored prayer in Santa Fe v. Doe, the court declared, "There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Exercise Clause protects."

In this case, noted Mateer and Leu, "...both Texas law and the school's policies affirm that when students speak at school events, including football games, they are engaging in private speech and their views do not reflect the position of the school.... The Kountze cheerleaders alone decide what message to place on their banners. The team is student-run, with school officials present only to monitor safety. Each week two cheerleaders take turns leading the team, including choosing whether to create the banners and, if so, what messages they should bear. The supplies to create the banners are paid for with private funds, as are the cheerleaders' uniforms, further demonstrating the private nature of their speech.... We better serve our students by educating them about our country's commitment to free expression rather than shutting out certain views. Otherwise, our schools do a great disservice to students and fail to prepare them to be citizens of our free society."

In fact, reference to God has been present in our public life from the very beginning. The Declaration of Independence acknowledges God in four separate places. The Framers of that instrument announced that the colonies were assuming "the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them." The Declaration states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Those who signed the Declaration proclaimed: "And for the support of this Declaration, with the firm reliance in the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

The Continental Congress opened its sessions, beginning in 1774, with prayer delivered by a clergyman. In 1776, regular chaplains were authorized and subsequently appointed by Congress. In 1787, Congress provided an annual salary for the chaplains. In 1787, Congress adopted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory. Article 3 proclaimed: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall ever be encouraged."

The intent of the First Amendment was to make government neutral among religious sects, not neutral between religion and non-religion. Professor Charles Rice, in his book, The Supreme Court and Public Prayer, writes: "... the public life of the American states was based upon the unapologetic conviction that there is a God who exercises benevolent providence over the affairs of man. This is not to say that all Americans then recognized God, or that there was agreement on all the details of his attributes. But to those who assert that the First Amendment was designed to prevent the government from recognizing God and praying His aid, it can rightly be said that they will have to find evidence for their claim elsewhere than in the history of the period prior to 1787."

It is a dangerous retreat from our belief in both freedom of religion and freedom of speech to treat religious speech in any way differently from other forms of free expression. While we believe in separation of church and state, and are opposed to the government expressing preference for one form of religious expression over another, our society has never agreed to remove reference to God from the public marketplace of ideas.

###

The Conservative Curmudgeon is copyright (c) 2012 by

Allan C. Brownfeld and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, http://www.fgfbooks.com. All rights reserved. This column may be forwarded or re-posted if credit is given to the author and fgfBooks.com.

###

Allan C. Brownfeld is the author of five books, the latest of which is THE REVOLUTION LOBBY (Council for Inter-American Security). He has been a staff aide to a U.S. Vice President, Members of Congress, and the U.S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee.

Editor’s note: A version of this piece was written for USA Today shortly after the Libyan revolution in early 2011.

Ronald Reagan clashed with Libya and its dictator Moammar Gadafi for the first time over 30 years ago. The details of that encounter must be revisited—particularly President Reagan’s sense of resolve and clarity of purpose—as once again President Obama’s foreign policy grapples with the anti-American sentiment and attacks on U.S. diplomatic posts in the Middle East.

One of us (Clark) was there in Washington in the 1980s, serving as acting secretary of state, in the absence of Secretary of State Al Haig, when the news hit regarding Gadhafi’s latest antics. Clark was in constant communication with Reagan and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. All had been close friends, colleagues and confidants dating back to California in the 1960s, when Clark was Governor Reagan’s chief of staff.

The crux of the crisis was, as usual, Gadhafi himself. The location was the Gulf of Sidra, off the North African coast in the Mediterranean, an area of obvious strategic importance. Gadhafi had already persisted in making himself a nuisance to the civilized world. In the late 1970s, he issued a direct challenge to the United States.

Each year, the American Sixth Fleet conducted extensive naval exercises in these waters. This was acceptable action in international waters, appropriate maneuvers for battle-readiness, particularly for the nation that led NATO. U.S. actions went on without dispute or provocation. That changed when Gadhafi unilaterally extended Libya’s presence beyond its historic 12-mile coastal limit into a much wider swath that went 100-200 miles from Tripoli to Benghazi, deep into the Gulf of Sidra. He was attempting to establish it as a Libyan lake, off limits to America and the West.

The Carter administration chose not to challenge Gadhafi, rescheduling and relocating U.S. exercises, ordering the Navy to stay clear of Gadhafi’s muscle-flexing. In 1981, however, a new president and new team—new principals with new principles—came to Washington. Ronald Reagan made clear he would not let America be bullied. Reagan and Weinberger announced that exercises would take place, as scheduled, just outside Libya’s 12-mile coastal limit.

More than that, the Joint Chiefs of Staff established new rules of engagement for the U.S. fleet, which Reagan quickly approved. The rules stated that if U.S. forces were fired upon, they could fire back immediately, without seeking layers of approval. “Anytime we send an American anywhere in the world where he or she can be shot at,” declared Reagan, “they have the right to shoot back.”

Reagan went further. During a National Security Council briefing, the admiral in charge asked precisely how far U.S. aircraft would be permitted to retaliate against Libyan aircraft. Reagan answered: “All the way into their hangar,” into Libya itself.

Reagan understood that a bully continues bullying until he’s punched in the nose. That moment came with early morning exercises in August 1981, led by the USS Nimitz. The Libyan air force set course, with a large number of aircraft, including Soviet MiGs. After a series of confrontations, two Libyan fighter jets locked on two American F-14 Tomcats escorting our ships, firing air-to-air missiles. The American pilots wasted no time making good use of the Reagan-approved rules, firing back with heat-seeking missiles. No need remained to follow the Libyan jets all the way to their hangars; they went down in the Mediterranean.

This demonstration cooled off Gadhafi, though it did not end his mischief. He continued his terrorist activities, operating not defiantly in the open but covertly, pursuing an extensive hit list, including Clark as one of the principal targets. His killing of innocent civilians in countries deemed threats to his regime eventually prompted the Reagan administration to order U.S. aircraft to Libya in April 1986. Targets in Tripoli and Benghazi were of a military and personal nature. Some of the nearly 100 bombs delivered on Gadhafi’s homeland landed at Splendid Gate, Gadhafi’s barracks, injuring his family members. Gadhafi, sleeping in a tent outside the compound, barely missed injury but did receive a rude awakening.

Consistently, President Reagan held firm against protests from the international community, from France, and from American liberals insisting that the Gulf of Sidra would be another Gulf of Tonkin: “Vietnam” all over again.

President Obama has a terribly difficult job with the present crisis in Libya and throughout the Middle East. To be clear, we’re not advocating military action. We don’t want war. We believe the lessons of the Reagan years—and those immediately prior—speak for themselves, namely: The Middle East situation demands a sense of direction, clarity, and confident purpose. Uncertainty suggests weakness. The Washington rule stands the test of time: The principles never change—only the principals.

— Judge Bill Clark was President Reagan’s deputy secretary of state in 1981 and national security adviser from 1982-83, among other posts. Dr. Paul Kengor is co-author (with Pat Clark Doerner) of Clark’s biography, “The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand.” Dr. Kengor is also professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of the New York Times best-selling book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.”

© 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions
expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.

Serious reading is not for everyone and it certainly is not for the undisciplined person. The more serious the reading challenge, the more discipline required. In the age of distractions where TV, smart phones and the internet compete for attention, reading discipline becomes the first casualty

Why read at all? Reading is a solitary (not lonely) act allowing a person to interact with thoughts and ideas of other minds.

For the most part, people read for recreation. As such, books become great companions. Even so, some people read to gather information on a particular topic. However, this type of reading involves a bit more skill than the common recreational riffler.

Acquiring sound, general knowledge and a knowledge of ultimate things comprises the realm of serious reading. It is a fortunate generation that produces one or two great minds. Our chance of meeting one of these great minds is nil. Nevertheless, it is possible to be taught by the greatest minds that ever lived by reading their books.

Every serious reader’s library should contain a copy of “How to Read a Book” by the late Mortimer J. Adler (1902-2001), educator, philosopher and author from the University of Chicago. His book remains a classic on the fine art of reading.

Adler is more concerned with serious reading than reading for entertainment. Reading, as he defines it, is “the process whereby a mind...elevates itself by the power of its own operations. The mind passes from understanding less to understanding more. Skilled operations that cause this to happen constitute the art of reading.”

Dr. Adler identifies four levels of reading. In elementary reading a person passes from non-literacy to beginning literacy. The second level is inspectional reading. At this level, a given amount of material is covered in a set amount of time. The objective is to examine a book concisely. The third level, analytical reading, involves the best and most complete reading possible in an unlimited amount of time. This level of reading obtains a deeper understanding. Finally, the highest level of reading is the most complex and systematic type of reading. Few people attain this level. Dr. Adler refers to this as syntopical reading. A reader reads many books and places them in relation to one another and to a subject around which they revolve.

Adler is not the only writer to encourage serious reading. Yale University professor Harold Bloom reached the same conclusion and pursues this theme in his book “How to Read and Why.” This volume should be of interest to the casual reader and bibliophile, alike.

Want to expand your enthusiasm for reading and your reading repertoire? Do so by dipping into a few of the following volumes for encouragement.

“How To Read Slowly: A Christian Guide to Reading with the Mind” by James W. Sire makes the case for reading with reflection to enhance enjoyment and gain a return on time invested. His book contains practical chapters on how to read fiction, nonfiction and poetry.

“The Practice of Reading” by Denis Donoghue offers something more esoteric. His elegant book discusses the importance of reading texts closely and imaginatively in order to derive a satisfying interpretation. In doing so, he demonstrates what serious reading entails.

“Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs To Know” by E. D. Hirsch, Jr. demonstrates that good teaching is not possible unless teachers can count on students sharing a body of fact and tradition. This is a book about building a foundation of common knowledge through reading that further enables students to understand what they read.

Fr. James V. Schall, S. J., wrote an odd book about books and reading when he penned “Another Sort of Learning.” He proceeds on the basis that many students and adults alike have never learned to raise, much less answer, the great questions, the ultimate questions, of life. To learn is a verb, and its object is truth.

Another odd but useful book is “A History of Reading” by Alberto Manguel. This is a light but informative work exploring the answer to the question: who shall be the master, the writer or the reader? If book collecting is “the gentle madness,” then Manguel would contend that reading those books is the most civilized of passions.

It is one thing to read. It is quite another to read well. Take time, or make time, to hone reading skills and discipline. Whether reading seriously or for pleasure there is no better time than the luxurious days of summer to revive the art of reading and to lose one’s self in a book.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

So another mask has dropped.  Barack Obama made history yesterday in becoming the first president to announce support for faux marriage.

And on January 20^th, 2009 he made history in becoming the first president who supports faux marriage.

Obama revealed himself in a Wednesday interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, saying, “At a certain point I’ve just concluded that, um, for me, personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that, uh, I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

This statement was made after Obama explained his “evolution” on the issue, a hothouse transformation that included discussions with homosexuals on his staff.  But here’s the reality: the aforementioned “certain point” he reached had more to do with the electorate’s perceived evolution than anything else.  This is because Barack Obama has always been pro-faux marriage.

How do I know?  For starters, Obama isn’t a Christian, as he claims; he isn’t a Muslim, as some critics claim, although he is a Muslim sympathizer.

He is a moral relativist and de facto atheist.

But, unlike with my first two sentences, I repeat myself.

And being a thoroughly modern Alinskyite secularist, he will always be on the cutting edge of societal devolution, which includes support for the undermining of marriage. 

If that isn’t enough for you, though, consider that, writes ABC News, “n 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he [Obama] indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position.”  Allow me to translate: “Our guy was dumb enough to reveal that he supported faux marriage when he needs votes in areas in which blacks are numerically strong.  And, as you may know, the black community doesn’t look kindly upon faux marriage.  So just ignore that man behind the curtain!  Barack is down!”