Public universities have a “political correctness” problem, as we all know. They routinely adopt “non-discrimination” policies and “speech codes” that are neutral-sounding in theory, but in practice are used in a heavy-handed manner to squelch Christian clubs and speech, which face hostility on today’s liberal, secular, college campuses. But that anti-Christian hostility is a problem for public universities expending taxpayer funds – they’re bound by the First Amendment’s provisions regarding freedom of speech, association and religious exercise (whereas a private university is not).
Texas A&M demanded that the student group, Freshman Leaders in Christ (FLiC), comply with the university’s “non-discrimination” policy and drop its requirement that FLiC members must be those who “declare themselves as Christian, are following Christ in their Christian walks, and whose desire is to serve others as a way of following Christ’s example of leadership.” If FLiC refused to comply with the university’s demand, it would be refused official student organization status.
The Alliance Defense Fund stepped in and convinced the school that it was headed down an unconstitutional path. Kudos to the school for backing off, but I’d like to know why a large university with an attorney or two at its beck and call would not have these policies reviewed and killed long before they become a problem. This scenario is so common that both ADF and the Christian Legal Society have websites and dedicated attorneys dealing with just this issue.
When campus “speech codes” are the issue, add the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education to the list of legal watchdogs.
I’m sure the Elk River, Minnesota, city council members thought they were doing the right thing. They probably saw it as their constitutional duty to assiduously avoid any so-called “separation of church and state” problems. Somewhere it had been drilled into them that government should have nothing to do with religion. They came up with what they saw as a great solution to a potential problem. They completely prohibited any religious group from renting public library meeting rooms, and with regard to rental of public park space the town charged religious groups more than other non-profit organizations. No one could possibly charge the town with favoring religion. No nasty letters from the ACLU. No complaints from the local atheist group. That was easy. Pat each other on the back. Well done.
There’s one problem with that approach, however. Under the First Amendment, discriminating against religion is just as wrong as discriminating in favor of it. In Elk River’s case, as in most others of this nature, a nice letter from the Alliance Defense Fund is all it took to educate the local government officials and correct the problem.
The solution to this recurring problem is simple if you’re a government official: treat religious groups exactly the same way you treat other community groups with regard to the use or rental of public facilities. Equal treatment, equal access, equal fees or costs.
Interesting idea for economic hard times: a church-sponsored wedding event for several couples. It cost about $3000, but think of the savings for the 32 couples who participated.
Read about it here.
The Gambling Titanic has smashed into the Berg of Recession. Its hull is filling with water quickly, and states are well advised NOT to bet on gambling any longer. Not even to plug budget gaps temporarily, especially in the Sea of Deflation where life boats are in short supply.
A recent article in USA Today (8/21/2009) summarizes the failing vice industry well with some noteworthy statements:
- “If you think states are looking for dough in all the wrong places to fill budget holes, you’ve hit the jackpot.”
- “For the relatively modest amount of tax revenue that gambling produces in most places — last year’s $6.8 billion was just 1% of state tax receipts nationwide it buys a disproportionate amount of problems: Addiction … scandal …”
- “Aside from the long-term economic and social costs of gambling, recent news suggests that it’s not even a reliable short-term solution to fiscal problems.”
- “[Gambling] becomes a zero-sum game as [more] states compete for the same pot.”
- “Gambling is here to stay, but by seeking to expand it as a something-for-nothing solution to budget shortfalls, states are only ducking tough choices between raising taxes or cutting services.”
- “For states serious about building sound economic foundations, the notion that gaming is the answer is, like the big Vegas casino of the same name, a mirage.”
Common sense dictates that if you’re starving, you don’t ask a thief for money. The same principle applies to cash-strapped states and gambling.
Here’s the take-away message: Don’t jump onboard the Gambling Titanic, it’s a sinking ship!
Okay, I’m not a fan of the ACLU, and never have been. If you’ve ever read “The ACLU vs America,” then you’re probably not either.
In its rush to scrub American life of all vestiges of Christian piety and morality, the ACLU seems to have reached a new low by demanding that Christians be jailed for refusing to bend the knee to its secularist agenda. A couple news stories have popped up in one week: the first involves a Florida court that refused the ACLU’s request to hold a school employee in contempt (for asking her husband to pray a blessing at a off-premises employee recognition dinner) in violation of a questionable court order (can a school waive the First Amendment rights of its employees?); and the second involves the ongoing Lisa Miller custody case in Virginia (former lesbian-turned-Christian mom doesn’t want to allow her former lesbian partner visitation rights with Lisa’s daughter) where the ACLU’s request to have Lisa jailed for contempt was likewise denied. Another hearing in the Florida case is set for mid-September where a couple more school employees face jail for another meal blessing.
Yeah, I realize there are court orders involved and that contempt charges go hand in hand with violating those in the ordinary case. But these cases do not pass the smell test for reasonableness, in my opinion. If you find yourself on the winning side of a case that justifies jailing people for praying over a meal or for caring about their biological daughter’s upbringing, then you should be taking a long hard look at your mission statement. The ACLU is a dishonorable and dangerous organization.
A Colorado District Judge determined that Poker is gambling, not a game of skill. In the future, defendants will not be able to present the “skill” evidence when charged with a poker gambling crime.
But Internet gambling lobbyists are going ballistic, insisting that poker’s a game of “skill” – not gambling. It’s one of the definitive “hang-ups” that keeps online poker illegal in the U.S. under current laws.
Come on guys, will armadillo painting be the next “game of skill”? How about counting toes on cats? Amazing.
Apart from common sense, a basic knowledge of probability easily determines that poker and most card games are subject lagely to chance. Jeffrey Rosenthal, author of the book Struck By Lightning, The Curious World Of Probabilities, says, “In reality, there are 2.6 million different five-card hands that can be dealt [in Poker].” And when the chances of being dealt a royal flush are one in 650,000, it’s a bit difficult not to call Poker a game of chance. When you bet money on chance, it becomes gambling. Period. Not much geinius required here.
So, playing poker (for money) is gambling - not skill. Yet, this rather obvious fact continues to perplex the Poker Player’s Alliance. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say this foreign-backed Internet gambling lobby is grasping at straws to manipulate U.S. policy for their own profit. But that’s just a hunch.
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the practice of legislative invocations in Marsh v. Chambers ( a case involving Nebraska’s legislature opening its sessions with chaplain-led prayer) against the charge of an “Establishment Clause” violation, there has been controversy and lawsuits over the application of that decision to other situations. Many times the controversy is over the sectarian nature of the prayer (“in Jesus’ name” really gets the ACLU folks hoppin’); sometimes it’s over the person leading the prayer (government official vs. third party); and sometimes it’s over a perceived preference for Christian prayers to the exclusion of other religions.
The city in the news today is La Crosse, Wisconsin. Its city council faced the threat of a lawsuit from an atheist organization for its practice of opening council meetings with prayer. But due to the timely intervention and assistance by our friends at the Alliance Defense Fund, the city has adopted an invocations policy recommended by ADF that should, hopefully, put an end to any talk of litigation there.
In a nutshell, the policy allows all churches and pastors in the community to volunteer to lead an invocation, and the folks who sign up can lead prayer on a first-come, first-served basis. There is no censorship of the prayer in advance (indeed, THAT would be a First Amendment violation itself) but the pray-ers are asked not to either proselytize nor disparage other religions.
More information on ADF’s model prayer policies is available here.
No, says a couple of well-known attorneys in this Washington Post piece. Our Constitution grants limited, enumerated powers to Congress to legislate in only a handful of areas. Since around the time of FDR’s New Deal, however, we’ve gotten used to Congress taking advantage of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to legislate everything from the type of light bulbs we use to the miles per gallon our cars must achieve. But requiring me to purchase insurance just because I’m walking around and taking up space? Attorneys Casey and Rivken argue persuasively that that scenario doesn’t fit under any of the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause, nor under Congress’ taxing power.
The current healthcare bill under debate, H.R. 3200, seems to be (hopefully) dying its own death by popular demand. But should Congress succeed in pushing it through anyway, it’s nice to know that it may not survive a court challenge.
(Update: Professor Adler is unconvinced but sees other constitutional problems.)
Parents may be surprised to realize that gambling machine manufacturers are creating video slot machines that imitate the video games little Jimmy and Alice playing in the living room. Spider Man, Hulk, Superman? Yep, they’ve got most any video gambling machine imitation of the games your kids currently play at home.
The difference? Video slots take your money – up to $54 dollars a minute in a nickel slot, as a matter of fact, and even more online.
A recent study out of Australia found that teens who “game” regularly may be more likely to develop social characteristics that lead to problem gambling. But it’s not so much the physical act of playing video games as it is the lack of parental supervision. ”[T]he sorts of kids who are playing video games probably do so because they’ve got less parental supervision … They’re probably bored; they probably don’t have a lot of structured activity in their life,” said one of the researchers.
Dean Bryden began gambling at age 14 and his habit led him to spend $180,000 in a single year. ”It’s an adrenaline rush for people,” he said. ”I think the internet poker is a big thing because you don’t have to be over the age of 18; it doesn’t matter how old you are.” Just one more reason not to legalize Internet gambling in the U.S. and for parents to interact with – and closely supervise – their kids’ activities.
The Capitol Weekly (8/20/09) reports that California’s attempt to pass intrastate Internet poker gambling was shot down by the California Senate in the closing month of the legislative session. Tribes are leading the negotiations, but the Pechanga Tribe’s recent poll of 802 randomly selected registered voters found that “44 percent strongly oppose and 17 percent somewhat oppose state legalization of Internet poker.”
The Pechanga Tribe’s opposition was declared just as the Morongo Band of Mission Indians joined with California card clubs to legalize Internet poker in the state. A letter to state tribal leaders stated, “far-reaching legal, political and policy consequences” will result should California legalize online poker.
Responsible fiscal management (or recovery, in California’s case) must always consider the wellbeing – and not exploitation – of the people. Families are not commodities to be bought, sold and exploited through casino operators in their own homes via the Internet.
