To: Anonymous Re: last post

Dear Anonymous:

I want to begin by thanking you for taking the time to read and comment on my blog. As one who blogs “just for the fun of it,” it is always exciting to know someone other than my immediate family is reading it!

Though we obviously differ as to the actual intent of the ACLU’s actions here (protecting our constitutional rights vs. suppressing the will of the people), I agree completely with you regarding the makeup of the organization, meaning that it is indeed made up of people from all walks of life and geographical locations, including our own Nampa, Idaho. So when I used the term “outsiders” you are correct in bringing me to task for that comment, and I apologize for it (and chalk it up to rhetorical passion!). I will not remove it from the post for the sake of maintaining the flow of the discussion, but I stand corrected on that. As to the rest, again, we differ as to our opinions of what the actions of the ACLU intended to accomplish, but if you were to read my post a second time perhaps you’ll see (I hope) that the issue at hand, for me anyhow, is the involvement of the ACLU at all.

I won’t bore you by repeating everything I wrote, but to me this is problematic because I do indeed feel it is an unwarranted intrusion into the authority of local governing entities. I will point to the actions of those who wanted the books removed and remind you that they did not turn to lawsuits when the decision of the board went against them. Admittedly they did not move on and focus their energies on spreading the Gospel, but that is neither here nor there. They continued to try to influence the Board through other means, and while we can debate forever and ever whether they should have done this, I suspect you and I would agree on that issue! Again though, my premise is that turning to the legal system to handle an issue such as this one does indeed represent uncalled for intimidation, because whether or not it was the local members of the ACLU that took this to that next step, it used the impressive powers of the ACLU to do so.

Whether this is in defense of the constitutional rights of all citizens is debatable for two reasons:

1) I don’t think most people consider their rights to have been violated…only those who felt they “lost” with that last decision from the Board.
2) Even though you seem to imply by your wording that the Board is unfamiliar with the Constitution (“All the ACLU did was remind the board of the first item on the addendum to that obscure document called the Constitution”), I myself am not. Nor do I believe the Board members themselves are unfamiliar with it, for my experience with every one of them is that they are highly intelligent and caring members of the community…exercising their authority and fulfilling their roles as each is led by his/her conscience to do so. Whether one agrees with their decision or not, it is unfair to characterize them as something they are not. Those on both sides of the issue are wonderful people and I appreciate one and all of them.

At any rate, the 1st amendment to that wonderful document you cite is as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

-Constitutional Amendment I (Bill of Rights) ratified December 15th, 1791

Here is where the problem lies…looking at the portion in question here, “…abridging the freedom of speech…” it is difficult to determine what exactly freedom of speech means. Certainly the Founding Fathers were confused about it as much as anyone else, as witnessed by the true examples of 1st amendment violations exhibited by them…including shutting down opposition newspapers! Talk about censorship! :-)

All I mean by pointing this out is that nobody can say emphatically that the Board made an “indefensible decision” because it is actually not clear that sequestering books constitutes a 1st amendment violation. I personally don’t think it even constitutes censorship, for the reason I mentioned in my post. Isn’t this, in part, one of the reasons the ACLU may have been so quick to attempt a lawsuit? Not merely to make the Board reverse its decision but to take this, hopefully, to the Supreme Court so that a murky issue can be clarified? I think so, but I could be wrong. And again I refer to my main concern…that this is a local issue and should remain so.

I hope this kind of clarifies where I was coming from. I do welcome any questions you may have as to my views, or if you’d like me to clarify anything I’ve said.

Before ending this comment (can it be a mere “comment” if it has more than two paragraphs? ;-) I do want to address your second paragraph. I have never written anything regarding the Ten Commandments issue but I did write the following as a result of the last incident at the library:

http://luna4him.blogspot.com/2008/03/christian-behavior-in-public-arena.html

Although you end the paragraph by stating that you would not accuse me of that which you wrote, you kind of did. You said that "it seems a tad hypocritical for a self-professed Christian to call the ACLU bullies when they approached the library board, yet it's perfectly acceptable for a radically conservative Christian group to do do the same thing to the library board, and for Christian activists to sue a city to impose its will on local government by forcing it to place the Ten Commandments monument in the park." I must assume I am that "self-professed Christian" in question. But it's okay because I myself have written pretty strong stuff before and made general assumptions that turned out not to be true. We all do it, so I accept that you are not actually lumping me in with those whom you mention! ;-)

Whether it is the ACLU or a Christian group, I do NOT think lawsuits are the way to go. I have been wronged before, for matters which I would have been justified in seeking legal resolution, but I do not believe it is right for me as a Christian to sue for my "rights." My trust must always be in God alone. Indeed, one of my biggest concerns with the whole Ten Commandments monument issue was summarized quite nicely by one of my heroes, Dr. Albert Mohler (President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), who preached a series on the Ten Commandments and referred to all the nationwide legal battles over public diplays of the Ten Commandments. He said that he suspected that those most zealously guarding our religious "freedom" were also the ones least likely to be able to recite the Commandments if asked to do so.

Based on my personally knowing some of those who were active in the Boise incidents, I would agree with his suspicion. How much better if we as Christians actually focused on sharing the Gospel rather than fighting for our "rights" through the court systems! A society will not be made more holy by legal rulings...only by the change that Christ alone brings. But I digress...
I hope this adequately adresses any concerns you may have had. I have noticed that while preparing this response to you that I've received two more comments! Wow...when I write on Biblical issues I don't get this kind of response! Maybe I should change my focus and write on more politically revelant issues from now on! ;-) Nah...

Thank you again for having read my blog!