Josef Goebbels' Backbone

I recently received an e-mail with the subject, "Finally, someone with some backbone STANDS UP!!!," complete with the picture of the bible and rose and a smaller one of TV commentator Andy Rooney who has as much to do with this as does Paul Harvey, which is zero. The best I can determine, the text (but not the email) author was Nick Gholson, a staff columnist for the Wichita Falls Times Record News. You can read the original here.

I was immediately reminded of Joseph Goebbels, who used similar publications to prejudice Germans against Jews before and during WWII. The technique is: you suggest a conspiracy of some sort and then show how bad and unreasonable it is and how important it is not to let it succeed. Then blame somebody for it. It doesn't have to be a real conspiracy mind you, or even a credible one. It just has to be really bad such as, for example, taking away everyone's right to pray (assuming one could do that, of course). Reichsminister Goebbels used it very effectively to stir up hatred of Jews, but it was later used with equal success in this country against Catholics, Negroes, Russians, Communists, Jews again, and, most recently, Muslims and Democratic public office incumbents. This particular piece seems to target everybody who supports the First Amendment, including most Democrats (and Jews; those people just don't seem to be able to get a break)! Dr. Goebbels would be proud!

Mr. Gholson, and the folks who have been circulating this, seem to believe that somebody is interfering with their rights to pray at football games. I suspect that this diatribe was a response to a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that overturned a lower court ruling that allowed school-sponsored prayers at school football games. The court reversed a previous decision that applied the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy to sponsor invocations at their graduation ceremonies. The District took issue with the argument that football games are sufficiently similar to graduation ceremonies that the same rules should apply. The decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1999.

Mr. Gholson's article was published a month before the beginning of the Supreme Court's subsequent term. It confuses school-sponsored invocations with prayer in general, and school-sponsored sporting events with other kinds of football games. The conclusion appears to be that the Court of Appeals' decision that the First Amendment prohibits The Santa Fe Independent School District from sponsoring invocations at its sporting events is a prohibition against anyone praying, in any way (including silently!), to anyone, at any football game, anywhere. Mr. Gholson specifically mentioned Christian prayer. Apparently the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, Shintos, Sikhs, Jainists, Baha'is, Cao Dais, Cheondoists, Tenrikyos, Wiccans, World Messianists, Seicho-no-leists and Rastafarians didn't feel threatened, or else Mr. Gholson just didn't give a damn about them.

The case was heard as the Santa Fe School District v. Doe (2000). Justice Stephens wrote the majority opinion. The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It's been my experience that Christians other than Catholics, Orthodox and some Episcopalians find this idea extremely difficult to understand, or, if they do understand it, to accept as a law one has a moral duty to obey.

Basically, the Court's decision is that government sponsorship of invocations at state-run school sporting events is the kind of religious coercion that was ruled unconstitutional in Engle v. Vitale 38 years previously. The Court held that the delivery of a message on state-run school property, at state-run school-sponsored events, over the state-run school's public address system, by a speaker representing the state-run school student body, under the supervision of state-run school faculty, and following state-run school policies which encourage public prayer at state-run school functions could not justifiably be called private speech. It also unjustifiably empowered a majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages - something singularly inappropriate for a government-funded (or, in fact, any legitimate) teaching institution.

The coercive aspect arises from the fact that some students, such as cheerleaders, members of the band, and the team members themselves, are required to attend football games. There is also the tremendous social pressure experienced by many students to be involved in school-sponsored sports. According to the Court, schools should not force students to choose between attending these games or to "risk facing a personally offensive religious ritual." The decision on this point reads: "School sponsorship of a religious message is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

They're talking specifically about public school-sponsored prayers at public school-sponsored sporting events. How can anyone find fault with that reasoning?

Nonetheless, somebody thought that Mr. Gholson had made a valid point and that it would be a good idea to send it to all his email buddies so they could be properly impressed, too. Faced with the realization that few people would know who Mr. Gholson was, this person decided to attribute it to more famous people like Paul Harvey or Andy Rooney to make a stronger case. Truth is not these people's strong suit.

Anyway, here is a matrix of the email that I received on the left and my responses on the right.

The email text	My response
Re: Fwd: Fw: FINALLY, someone with some backbone STANDS UP !!!	"Stands up" seems to mean "agrees with us." I don't.
Pray if you want to!	Especially if you keep it to yourself.
CBS and Katie Couric must have had a panic in rushing to reassure the White House that this is not their network policy--re: Andy Rooney's commentary on prayer.	CBS and Katie Couric have absolutely nothing whatever to do with this. Neither does Andy Rooney. See: the Snopes commentary.
Folks, this is the year that we RE-TAKE AMERICA & CANADA	I'm not sure who "we" are or what "retake" means, but I'm against whoever sponsors this having any authority in government - anywhere.
********* Get Ready *********	I'm ready now.
Keep this going around the globe. Read it and forward every time you receive it.	I'm not going to do that, because I am against circulating as true assertions that are false and misleading.
We can't give up on this issue.	I assume this means the sponsors want to get rid of the First Amendment.
Andy Rooney and Prayer - Andy Rooney says:	Nope. See: Snopes.
I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December.	Singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song is not against the law. Government sponsorship of religious activity is.
I don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution.	Government sponsorship of the theory of evolution is not against the law. Government sponsorship of religion is.
Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game.	...Unless, of course, they use taxpayers' money or force people to participate. If the government does it, it's unconstitutional.
So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts.	The issue is not the length of the religious exercise, it's the government sponsorship.
They're just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game.	As long as they keep it to themselves, there isn't any problem. The problem arises when they force others to participate or provide funds.
But it's a Christian prayer, some will argue.	The origin of the prayer is not at issue. It would be equally repugnant to the Constitution if people were forced to pray to God, Jesus, Thor, Satan, Ahura-Mazda, or any other deity.
Yes, and this is the United States of America and Canada, countries founded on Christian principles.	There is no authoritative indication that either country was founded on principles which are uniquely Christian. On the other hand, freedom of religion is guaranteed by the US First Amendment and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1.	The First Amendment prohibits Government endorsement of ANY religion. Popularity is simply not a factor.
So what would you expect -- somebody chanting Hare Krishna?	In the United States, it would be reasonable to expect the government to obey the law.
If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.	The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply in Jerusalem.
If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad, I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.	The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply in Baghdad.
If I went to a ping pong match in China, I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.	The First Amendment to the US Constitution does not apply in China.
And I wouldn't be offended. It wouldn't bother me one bit.	Offense is not at issue, What is at issue is government sponsorship.
When in Rome .....	When in the US, one is required to obey US law.
But what about the atheists? Is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to pass the collection plate. Just humour us for 30 seconds. If that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.	I believe the "argument" is being made by basically ignorant people claiming to be "Christians" that the "atheists" don't want "Christians" to pray, or are offended by them doing so. But that is not the issue, and never was. The concern is that by using taxpayer funded school property, at taxpayer funded school-sponsored events, over the public taxpayer funded public address system, by a speaker representing the taxpayer funded school student body, under the supervision of taxpayer funded school faculty, and following policies which encourage public prayer at which students such as football players, band members and cheerleaders are required to attend, violates the First Amendment, regardless of the number of people involved. Besides, atheists pay taxes, too.
I don't think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world's foundations.	Possibly not, but it's still unconstitutional if it is sponsored by the government.
Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.	Actually, "turning the other cheek" is required of Christians. See Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. Besides, the First Amendment is a right being upheld here.
Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep.	This may be true, but it's irrelevant. If they taught that the government should sponsor prayer, they're just plain wrong.
Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing.	This does not lead to the conclusion that the government should sponsor it.
Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying. God, help us.	Not true. You can pray all you want. You can even do it in public if you want. What you cannot legally do is use tax money to force anybody to participate.
And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.	The issue here is not offense, it's constitutionality.
The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn't care what they want.	I think the implication here is that government funds should be used to require others to participate in the religious exercises of the majority. That's precisely unconstitutional.
It is time that the majority rules! It's time we tell them, "You don't have to pray; you don't have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don't have to believe in God or attend services that honour Him.	Which is basically what the First Amendment says.
That is your right, and we will honour your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away.	Several cases in which religious rights have been taken away by government have been resolved in favor of individual religious rights by the Supreme Court. See my article on school prayer.
We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!"	Not in the US. Application of the First Amendment is pretty well established.
God bless us one and all...Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America and Canada, despite all our faults, We are still the greatest nations of all. God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God.	This bit of irrelevancy seems to be an appeal to religious fervor to provoke an emotional response leading to acceptance of the foregoing. However, the validity of the statements or arguments presented is influenced not at all by the degree to which people believe them.
Let's make 2011 the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions.	"Put God back.." almost invariably means "make others endorse our religious beliefs." The First Amendment does not permit that.
And our military forces come home from all the wars. Keep looking up.	I think the implication here is that violating the First Amendment will bring peace. I don't think so.
If you agree with this please pass it on. If not delete it.	What this means is, "If you disagree, keep quiet." I choose not to do that.

John Lindorfer