Legally dumb

A commonly heard mantra in this country is that everyone is entitled to their opinion. And that's more or less true. But when an opinion flies counter to reality, it shouldn't really be given much consideration-- particularly in a state's major newspaper!! And yet-- predictably-- that's exactly what we get with today's letter from Joe A. Putnam of Oklahoma City. He writes:

The first word of the First Amendment is 'Congress.' As in 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...' Atheists have for years misused this as a battle cry for pushing religion out of the public square. The Constitution doesn’t separate church and state; it prevents Congress from establishing an official religion. The Constitution limits Congress, not the states.

Uh. OK, even if one isn't a trained lawyer or constitutional scholar, this sort of logic should send up some red flags. If it's just Congress that is prohibited from privileging one religion over another, then why aren't states with huge fundamentalist Christian populations passing laws left and right making sure to establish Southern Baptist Protestantism (or whatever) as the religion of the state, and ban the practice of less desirable religions??

Oh, right. There is the Supreme Court and this thing called Gitlow v. New York. You can read about the case at the link provided, but the thrust of it is this:

The Supreme Court relied on the 'due process clause' of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits a state from depriving 'any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' The Court stated that 'For present purposes we may and do assume that' the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were 'among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states'

So, in other words, people far smarter than Joe Putnam have already thought about this and decided that the opposite is true. So while the First Amendment may limit this to Congress, the Fourteenth extends it to the States. Boom.

At this point, why is the paper running this letter? There are factual errors here!

Of course, Mr Putnam isn't finished:

It may offend atheists, but states aren’t prohibited from putting the Ten Commandments on the Capitol grounds, crosses in public places or engaging in other forms of religious expression.

No, but they can't do it with public money. And the plan has already back-fired as there will also be a wonderful monument to Baphomet right there on the Capitol grounds, too.

In 1962, Madeleine Murray O’Hair took a case to the Supreme Court because she was raising her children to be atheists and school prayer made them uncomfortable. Thus, all it took was one atheist complaining that prayer was offensive to get school prayer banned ever since.

Way to misrepresent things!!  The case was actually consolidated with Abington School District v. Schempp before going to the Supreme Court. And it wasn't about whether school prayer made some children "uncomfortable" at all. Instead, it was that, as noted in the Schempp case involving the mandatory reading of certain Bible verses, "specific religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible 'were contrary to the religious beliefs" held by Schempp as his family.

It is EASY to see how this could be problematic for any religious family-- the school is forcing a child to read and interpret a specific religious text in a specific way. This is precisely what the First Amendment sought to prevent!

Indeed, what would happen if a particular teacher decided to lead prayers to Baphomet?!? How upset would Mr Putnam be then?!?

Naturally, children had the option to opt out of such things, but, again, as noted in the Schempp case, doing so could ostracize the student and/or jeopardize relationships with teachers and other classmates.

It should also be noted that these rulings didn't "get school prayer banned" at all. Instead, it simply stopped the public, teacher-led, organized prayer that had been going on. A kid can of course pray in school!!

Mr Putnam concludes:

It’s time to fight back! The Supreme Court just ruled that public meetings can start with a prayer. If that is constitutionally sound, then Gov. Mary Fallin should instruct state schools Superintendent Janet Barresi to have Oklahoma’s schools begin each day with a voluntary prayer. After all, what is a school if not a public meeting? If atheists don't like it, they don't have to participate.

Ugh. Mr Putnam is referring to the recent case out of upstate New York. There are plenty of people who disagree, but a careful reading of the majority's decision make it clear that applying this ruling more broadly is not what they had in mind. (E.g. "The analysis would be different if town board members directed the public [clearly meant as opposed to members of town boards and commissions, who often serve part-time and as volunteers -- ed.] to participate in the prayers, singled out dissidents for opprobrium, or indicated that their decisions might be influenced by a person’s acquiescence in the prayer opportunity.") I have no doubts that when the day comes that someone gives a prayer to Satan in a "public meeting" Christians like Mr Putnam will be livid. And it will all be their own fault.

In any event, it seems clear that Mr Putnam has no real understanding of the law, so running a letter demanding that Fallin do something that is almost certainly unconstitutional is sort of stupid.

Why a newspaper would run such a stupid letter is beyond comprehension. But since it pushes the editors' theocratic agenda, it gets published.