FELLOW CRIMINALS - LET US PRAY

When the judge was informed the Consent Decree she had brokered between the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some religious nuts had been violated by two notorious criminals, she quickly took action. She ordered them to appear before her on September 17th to stand trial to ascertain whether they were indeed brazen enough to defy her. Obviously, U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers is no one to mess with. She was going to ensure the people within her jurisdiction were safe from the evil she and the ACLU discovered was rampant at Pace High School in the Santa Rosa County School District in Florida.

But what was this alleged crime that the ACLU and Judge Rodgers believed was so heinous, so evil, and so insidious that criminal contempt charges, charges that could result in a $5000 fine and/or six months in prison, needed to be leveled at high school principal, Frank Lay, and athletic director, Robert Freeman? Were they plotting a terrorist attack on the school? No. Were they engaged in inappropriate sexual activities with the students? No. Were they embezzling school funds? No. Had they given their athletes performance enhancing drugs? No. Had they altered test scores to ensure Pace High School received federal funding? No. Nothing as mundane as these types of crimes raised the ire and moral indignation of Judge Rodgers and the ACLU. Rather, the crime was the utterance of a few words, a blessing over a meal to be exact, a luncheon given to show appreciation to businesses and individuals who had helped in the construction of a new athletic field house. The Consent Decree implemented by Judge Rodgers with the enthusiastic blessing of the ACLU had succeeded in criminalizing prayer. And they were not about to let a couple of uppity Christians get away with invoking God’s blessing without their blessing.

Does this mean if you live in the jurisdiction of U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers and her ACLU minions and you say grace over your food in the privacy of your home you will be ordered into court to face criminal charges? No. At least, not yet. But if you are in a public school and you feel the prompting of the Holy Spirit to say a prayer, check with your lawyer or you may experience a lightening of your wallet and a new home address for a few months.

No doubt, Rodgers and the ACLU would take extreme exception to what I am saying. They have rightly pointed out that the prayer offered by Freeman at the request of Lay was given on school grounds during school hours. (However, they have wrongly pointed out that students were present during the prayer.) In their estimation this was a violation of the terms of the Consent Decree. Therefore, upon learning of this prayer, these crusaders for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, felt duty-bound to uphold the law. After all, the reputation of the Court and its power to strip its subjects of religious liberty was at stake to say nothing of the prestige of the ACLU.

As this story unfolded, however, there was conflicting “facts” reported. It was not clear to me where the luncheon was held or when. It was also not clear if students were present when the prayer was given. To answer these questions I contacted the Frank Lay and Robert Freeman Defense fund website. I specifically asked when and where the luncheon was held and if students were present or not.

I promptly received both an email response and a phone call from Mr. Robert Smith. He, along with the help of some others, set up a bank account to help pay for Lay’s and Freeman’s legal expenses and create a website to provide up-to-date information about the case. I found Mr. Smith to be both pleasant and engaging. He politely answered my questions and patiently bore with me when I asked for clarification of details.

Mr. Smith was present at the luncheon and the prayer. Therefore, I have complete confidence in the answers he provided. They are as follows: No students were present at the luncheon. The meal had been prepared by students in the school’s Culinary Arts Club, but they were not present when Mr. Freeman offered the blessing. The event was held on school grounds and it took place during school hours. It was an “Invitation Only” event attended by adults. No one objected to the prayer during the luncheon. Afterward, however, a school board member who was present at the event did inform the ACLU that a prayer had been offered to bless the meal.

Thus, Lay and Freeman were ordered to stand trial on criminal contempt charges. They appeared before Judge Rodgers on September 17th as ordered. After a long day of testimony Rodgers deliberated for about an hour. Her verdict? Both men were found not guilty of the criminal contempt charges because the prosecution could not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law. However, Rodgers made a point of letting Lay know she questioned his innocence. Addressing him she said: “At the end of the day, I do have some doubts about whether you intended to comply (with the injunction).” Fortunately, Rodgers could not punish Lay and Freeman because of her doubts. Both men exited the courthouse to a large crowd of supporters who broke into applause and cheers. And truly, the verdict was welcome news.

But what has changed? While the “Not Guilty” verdict is very welcome news for not only Frank Lay and Robert Freeman, but for all who support the right to exercise one’s religion without government interference, the fact is the Consent Decree is still in effect. Prayer is still outlawed as the result of the ACLU and an activist judge. And any who dare lift their voice in prayer, even if it is to thank God for the food He has provided, will likely be thrown in prison. I wonder where Judge Rodgers and the ACLU will throw prisoners if they offer a prayer of thanks and blessing over the food served to them while incarcerated?

Before handing down her verdict, Rodgers, likely feeling the pressure from issuing criminal contempt charges against two men over a prayer and wanting to vindicate herself, lectured those in the courtroom. She said, “To suggest that the court has criminalized prayer…is offensive and insulting.” Personally, I do not care whether she is offended and insulted. The truth is she, along with the ACLU, has criminalized prayer, even prayer by students. The Decree reads in part: “To the extent that School Officials permit a person during or in conjunction with School Events to give an address that a School Official can or does shape, review, or edit for content, substance, message, style, or theme, then School Officials shall instruct the person that the person’s address must exclude Prayer.”

So what happens now? Arrogance such as this should energize every Christian to push for federal laws legalizing school vouchers. Rodgers and those of her ilk must not be allowed to force her anti-Christian views upon us or upon our children. Nevertheless, as Mr. Smith reminded me during our phone conversation: “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12 NASU). This is true. And what is the most effective weapon against satanic forces? Prayer.

America has turned her back upon the Lord. She has forgotten the miracle of her conception and birth. She has become arrogant believing her greatness lies in her military and the wisdom of man. Her conscience has been desensitized to the point of no longer recognizing the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, truth and lies. If I may paraphrase the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 23:37-39: “O America, America, the nation that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'" (ESV).

God has every right to punish America anyway He chooses for rejecting Him. So consider this, if God brings drought and famine upon America, Judge Rodgers and the members of the ACLU will not have to worry about anyone praying over food because they will be praying for food. And my guess is Judge Rodgers and company will be right alongside them.

Soli Deo Gloria!

COUNTING THE COST

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR

Email this to a friend

Print HTML

Post A Comment

Comments

29 comments for this article

<< < 1 | 2 | 3 > >>

Reverse Comment Order

Added: November 03, 2009. 02:37 PM CST

So, Terry: did they prove that evolution occurred, or not?

If so, how can you sustain your position that evolution has been "proved false"?

If not, what definition of "evolution" are you using? - because it is not one that biologists would recognize!

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: October 20, 2009. 04:52 AM CST

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

These scientists were not trying to demonstrate the whole ascent of man, or to create life from non-life.

Instead, what they did was to prove that evolution occurred. Evolution is simply a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

Scientists do not accept the creationist notion of there being two different processes at work ("micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution"). As scientists use the terms, they denote the same process, but micro-evolution occurs over only a few generations, whereas macro-evolution occurs over thousands of generations. In this case, the experiment has covered tens of thousands of generations. That makes what was proved here macro-evolution according to how scientists use the term.

The difference is sharp enough for them to have described it already half-way through the experiment (which is still ongoing) as "incipient speciation". Still, there is no definition of evolution by scientists that I can find that requires a new species name to be assigned before it's called evolution. If you can find one, present it.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: October 19, 2009. 04:38 PM CST

Zander

You said: "Thought you'd try something like this, Terry." Something like what? You provided a website that you said proved evolution had occurred in a lab. I read it and passed along the abstract findings. What those findings reveal is an E.Coli bateria that didn't have a taste for citrates acquired a taste for them. That is a long way from evolution.

The fact the scientists, years after the experiment "have not felt the need to assign a new species identifier to the new strain of E. coli that is able to digest citrate" is revealing. Given the clear desire for man to find evidence for evolution, and thus legitimizing his independence of a Creator, if scientist had shown evolution to have occurred in a lab it would have been front page news.

I'm not sure what your definition of evolution is. If you believe evolution includes the manipulation of a species (such as creating cats that glow in the dark) then the definition needs clarification.

In order for all life on earth to have sprung from non-life to ever increasely complex life forms change from one species to another must take place, something referred to as macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, which is nothing more than changes within a species, as described in the experiment you sighted fall far short of proving man descended from lower lifeforms.

Also, Zander, you seem to think you know me. You appear to be condescending and patronizing as well as making unfounded assumptions as to my beliefs. But that's OK. I'm a big boy. I'm use to such attitudes.

Terry

Alert a moderator

Added: October 15, 2009. 06:06 AM CST

Thought you'd try something like this, Terry.

It is harder to define speciation within the context of asexual reproduction than within the context of sexual reproduction, because the latter involves two groups of organisms that can't interbreed, a situation that cannot arise when organisms reproduce asexually.

For biologists, it appears that for species that reproduce asexually, they must become genetically distinct in order to be considered separate species. You can see in the further documentation for this experiment that the scientists do think that what they described ten years ago as "incipient speciation" was already occurring here, even if they have not felt the need to assign a new species identifier to the new strain of E. coli that is able to digest citrate.

If you are thinking that for evolution to be proven to have happened, one species needs to turn into a completely and visibly different one in a lab setting (like, say, a fish into a frog), then that is not a definition of evolution that any biologist would agree with. Biologists look for the development through natural selection of genetically distinct populations, which is exactly what has happened here.

Besides, Terry, I don't think you'd accept as evolution even the kind of evolution you are talking about. If a fish did actually turn into a frog in a lab setting, rather than conceding that evolution does happen, wouldn't you probably argue instead that a miraculous act of special creation had occurred, for God's own inscrutable reasons?

I think that you have too much of your life invested in the notion that evolution has not been proved to happen for you to be able to accept that it has been shown to happen here. I understand that you want to defend your beliefs to the hilt, whatever the evidence says. If these scientists are right about what they have observed in the lab, then it does undercut your particular approach to Scripture, and that makes it more or less impossible for you to accept it.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: October 14, 2009. 03:14 PM CST

Zander

"Tendentious". Nice word.

I visited the website you referenced. An abstract of the experiment follows:

The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

I don't pretend to understand everything in this abstract (I'm not a microbiologist). But it does seem that the scientists started with an ecoli strain and ended with an ecoli strain that acquired a taste for citrates.

It doesn't say a new species evolved.

Terry

Alert a moderator

Added: October 13, 2009. 02:59 PM CST

Alan

Thank you for your response. I appreciate your kind words.

Terry

Alert a moderator

Added: October 13, 2009. 10:00 AM CST

As it happens, I do believe in God.

The difference between my belief and yours, though, is as follows.

I accept that I have no proof of that belief, and that therefore other people are not obligated to share it; concomitantly, I am perfectly comfortable with a situation where public schools teach facts that can be proved or disproved, and I share with my daughters my beliefs about things that can't.

As the great Christian writer Thomas Traherne observed, the world is to be embraced as a treasure, and humans as a most glorious part of God's Creation:

"Your Enjoyment of the World is never right, till evry Morning you awake in Heaven: see your self in your fathers Palace: and look upon the Skies and the Earth and the Air, as Celestial Joys: having such a Reverend Esteem of all, as if you were among the Angels. The Bride of a Monarch, in her Husbands Chamber, hath no such Causes of Delight as you.

You never Enjoy the World aright, till the Sea it self floweth in your Veins, till you are Clothed with the Heavens, and Crowned with the Stars: and perceiv your self to be the Sole Heir of the whole World: and more then so, because Men are in it who are evry one Sole Heirs, as well as you. Till you can Sing and Rejoyce and Delight in GOD, as Misers do in Gold, and Kings in Scepters, you never Enjoy the World.

I do enjoy the world. Do you?

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: October 13, 2009. 06:52 AM CST

Terry, this site should give you all the information you need.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

To summarize: over the course of thirty years, this group of scientists tracked the evolution of E. coli bacteria, which reproduce very rapidly relative to larger species. Over the course of thousands of bacterial generations, a population of E. coli bacteria evolved that has never before been observed in nature, who are able to derive energy from citrate compounds. This finding was quite widely reported around six months ago.

One of the things scientists are finding is that, in confined and stressful environments, evolution (genetic changes as a result of a process of natural selection) can occur more rapidly than they had previously thought.

I await with bated breath the tendentious arguments you will advance to argue that this doesn't fit your definition of evolution.

Zander

Alert a moderator

Added: October 12, 2009. 04:22 PM CST

Love Your Column

Mr. Brown - Great column. Thank you for your brave stand. The banter between you and this Zander character is also interesting. He strikes me as that specific type of individual for whom Matthew 10:14 is written. He embraces the world, and loves the gray areas, he supports the belief system of the world, gives equal weight and relevance to all Gods - and gods - and will never have enough courage or faith to embrace something he can't write down, place into a chart, or express in a mathematical equation. God Bless you for the trying.

Alan Arnold

Alert a moderator

Added: October 12, 2009. 04:04 PM CST

Zander

You stated: "If, for example, evolution has been proved to occur in a lab setting, then I feel that public schools should teach it. You would feel that schools shouldn't, even if it has been proved to occur, because evolution violates your religious beliefs."

Are you saying evolution has been proved to occur? Please provide me with the documentation to support this, scientist(s), laboratory, location, date, what the original species was and what species it evolved into.

Terry

Alert a moderator

Reverse Comment Order

<< < 1 | 2 | 3 > >>

Reader Login