David Wallace Croft "says he is fighting against the influence of 'Judeo-Christian monotheism.'" You know, the dastardly social effects of singing "Silent Night" at school holiday concerts. A teacher who wore a t-shirt of a Christian university. But the biggest fight of his life is yet to be decided: That moment of silence his kids' school has each morning.
He and his wife, Shannon, are suing Gov. Rick Perry and the Carrollton-Farmers Branch school district, arguing that the state's minute of silence, in effect since 2003, is unconstitutional and amounts to state-sanctioned school prayer.The lawsuit says a Rosemeade teacher told Mr. Croft's son that the minute of silence held each morning was specifically for prayer. She then bowed her head, clasped her hands and began to pray.
"Moment of silence bills have been popping up in additional states," Mr. Croft wrote on his blog. "To have millions of public school children waste a minute of education each day for a practice that has no secular purpose seems to me like a great sin."
Oh GOSH! A whole minute of instructional time -- LOST! That is a "GREAT SIN"! Hey, anyone else detect the irony in Croft using a religious term -- "sin" -- in his description? (And maybe Croft can move to Boston. Wonder if he'd sue those schools for their great sin?) If some of the instances are true -- like a teacher telling his kid that the moment of silence was specifically for prayer, then that certainly is out of line. Croft also had issues with Boy Scout rallies during school hours and a poster that contained the phrase "In God We Trust." These are gray areas that may or may not have legal hassles. For instance, was the Scout rally during an assembly? (Croft claims they recruited during the rallies, which, if true, is out of line, in my opinion.) Was the phrase "In God We Trust" on a poster of a coin or some other U.S. currency?
In my view, I think there'd be less animosity towards folks like Croft and Mike Newdow if there was more consistency by these so-called "activists." Muslims are allowed to actually pray -- even in public schools -- based on some sort of a "reasonable accommodation." It has happened right here in Delaware, and most recently in San Diego. [Public] Universities have installed footbaths for Muslim students. And, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals banned the Pledge of Allegiance but allowed Muslim prayers to be recited as part of a course on religion. But when a very nebulous "moment of silence" is permitted, well then these activists scream STOP EVERYTHING! WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REALLY ATTEMPTING TO DO!!
Another thing to consider is the contradiction inherent in this view. Not for Croft, perhaps (he says he is a libertarian), but for all the progressive leftists who demand "tolerance" and "respect" for "diversity." It is evident in the examples I note above regarding Muslims, yet the very same respect and tolerance is rescinded when it comes to the majority. Less, even, as a mere moment of silence where prayer is legally noted as only ONE possible thing to do during it! And demanding an end to religious-themed songs at holiday concerts? Where's the "tolerance" there? Is it wrong for atheists (or Muslims, or Buddhists or whomever) to be exposed to the Judeo-Christian culture via song? I thought diversity was all-important!
You know, Hube, those footbaths would also serve as great urinals. Since there is absolutely no religious significance to them , presumably I could take a leak in one without being accused of intolerance and brought up on charges by the University, correct?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at August 7, 2007 08:34 PMThe lawsuit ultimately gets its support from the Constitution. At question is: whether or not having a moment of silence unequivocally proves that Congress supports one particular religion as the State religion? If this is the argument taken to court by the school, the case should be dropped as having no merit. A moment of silence is a politically necessitated recognition that 98% of Americans believe in some type of supreme power. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. Even permitting Muslims some special perks, does not qualify to constitute the State support of the Muslims religion over say, Baptists.
The only reason for this case to be argued at all, is to prove once again that a moment of silence is protected under the Constitution of the United States as the very proof that the State does not support one religion over another.
I am sick of litigous persons eating up tax dollars and tying up the system. Are they so arrogant to think that their beliefs are more important than the majority. I think the district should file counter suit on these lame people. How about they just move south? remember the love it or leave it?
Let them home school their children!
Signed: sick of you people like this.
Posted by: BIlly Joe Bob Normal at August 8, 2007 09:17 PM:Not for Croft, perhaps (he says he is a libertarian),
Interestingly enough, David Wallace Croft does not say that he is a Unitarian, aka Unitarian*Universalist, aka U*U. . . even though he joined the Community Unitarian Universalist Church of Plano in 2005. Personally I consider the term atheist Unitarian to be an oxymoron, and consider it to be a shameful indictment of the Unitarian*Universalist "church" that a fundamentalist atheist pretending to be a Unitarian should be fighting against the influence of 'Judeo-Christian monotheism.'
Posted by: Robin Edgar at August 17, 2007 01:57 AM