Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity

[Ducky]

Bad example.

The actual facts of the case were that McDonalds' coffee was dangerously hot, by company policy. The "industry standard" is to maintain and serve coffee at between 130-140 degrees (Fahrenheit, obviously); at that time, McDonald's maintained and served it at between 180-190. The relevant McDonald's exec testified in court that a burn hazard existed at that temperature and admitted that their coffee was involved in something like fifty third-degree burn incidents each year. Despite the fact that he acknowledged complicity in these, he stated that McDonald's had no intention of adjusting the holding temperature.

The judge specifically called McDonald's conduct during the case "reckless, callous, and willful."

McDonald's was not sued because its coffee was hot. It was sued because its coffee was, by its own admission, dangerously hot, much more so than any other company was willing to offer to the public, and despite having clear knowledge of the danger, they didn't do anything about it.

Yes I just had a discussion with someone more familiar with the case than I, and you're right it is a bad example.

I'm not sure I know a better example off hand, but I still maintain that settlement in civil court doesn't necessarily settle who's "right" in whatever respect DOC wishes to determine.

 

[Mojo]

Randi lamented a few times in his commentaries that the US are about the only country where losing a claim in court does not force the losing party to pay for the winning party's expense. As such, I wouldn't be surprised if settling out of court were a common practice to avoid paying to defend against frivolous suits, if the settlement amount is significantly less than the expected court costs.

Not only in the US. In the UK settling out of court is a common practice, and recent reforms to the civil justice system had the explicit objective of having as many cases as possible settled without coming to court.

 

[drkitten]

Using drkittens logic if a man said, "I believe the capital of Florida is Miami" while knowing all along that [the] capital of Florida is Tallahassee having cited documents showing that Tallahasee is indeed the capital, then the man is a deliberate liar.

Fixed for you. Because I'm sure you wouldn't want be caught in yet another deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.

Doc contends drkittens logic is not logical.

I'm sure you don't.

 

[Hawk one]

Yes I just had a discussion with someone more familiar with the case than I, and you're right it is a bad example.

I'm not sure I know a better example off hand, but I still maintain that settlement in civil court doesn't necessarily settle who's "right" in whatever respect DOC wishes to determine.

Take notice of this post, DOC. Fowl made a mistaken assertion, drkitten showed him the facts with citation, and the first thing fowl does is to admit that it was a bad example.

Mistakes are something we all do. But admitting to them without having to have the admission dragged out with the person kicking and screaming and protesting all the way, and then adjusting his views to fit the actual facts (not to mention that he'll probably learn to be more careful about throwing out more assertions in the future without confirming them from a proper source)... Now -that- is what makes a person someone I can respect. And I cannot respect you, DOC. Not one millimetre.

Fowl, if you want a good example (or at least better, the McDonalds case do have some details that support your assertion, just that it's not completely one-sided as a whole), I could dig up some stuff from the video game world if you like. It's not unusual that that obscure computer-related companies claiming some sort of patent that they then let lie dormant for years, then trying to milk all the major gaming industry for what they can once they start using something like that patent. And every now and then they'll be reaping quite the spoils in settlements because that's cheaper for the big companies.

 

[Ducky]

Take notice of this post, DOC. Fowl made a mistaken assertion, drkitten showed him the facts with citation, and the first thing fowl does is to admit that it was a bad example.

Mistakes are something we all do. But admitting to them without having to have the admission dragged out with the person kicking and screaming and protesting all the way, and then adjusting his views to fit the actual facts (not to mention that he'll probably learn to be more careful about throwing out more assertions in the future without confirming them from a proper source)... Now -that- is what makes a person someone I can respect. And I cannot respect you, DOC. Not one millimetre.

Fowl, if you want a good example (or at least better, the McDonalds case do have some details that support your assertion, just that it's not completely one-sided as a whole), I could dig up some stuff from the video game world if you like. It's not unusual that that obscure computer-related companies claiming some sort of patent that they then let lie dormant for years, then trying to milk all the major gaming industry for what they can once they start using something like that patent. And every now and then they'll be reaping quite the spoils in settlements because that's cheaper for the big companies.

Aside from some rather overly technical patent lawsiuts between computer companies, I can't find an example that would be a good support for my statement. Since the patent law tuff is just too convoluted to explain, I'll amend my statement so as not to be asserting anything without evidence.

Ahem:

It has been my experience from talking with lawyers I have known for a long time that they have the impression the civil settlements do not always reflect who is morally justified in the case, but rather what a technicality of law can do to force a payment.

 

[DOC]

Ben Franklin's financial support of the Church.

Well I skimmed through a few of the posts since my last post and its pretty much what I expected -- same ol', same ol', attack the messenger. But now its time to get away from DOC, and back to information about our founders and the separation of church and state issue.

It looks like Jefferson wasn't the only "supposedly" non-religious founder to give his own money to churches. Ben Franklin also didn't mind giving to the cause of Christianity.

From the book "Benjamin Franklin -- An American Life" by Walter Isaacson (page 84) says:

"Because he {Franklin} believed that churches were useful to the community he paid his annual subscription to support the towns Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Jedediah Andrews"

Issacson gives sources for this which I'll post in my next post.

 

[Mojo]

From the book "Benjamin Franklin -- An American Life" by Walter Isaacson (page 84) says:

"Because he {Franklin} believed that churches were useful to the community he paid his annual subscription to support the towns Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Jedediah Andrews"

Does this amount to public funding of the church?

 

[kmortis]

Well I skimmed through a few of the posts since my last post and its pretty much what I expected -- same ol', same ol', attack the messenger. But now its time to get away from DOC, and back to information about our founders and the separation of church and state issue.

It looks like Jefferson wasn't the only "supposedly" non-religious founder to give his own money to churches. Ben Franklin also didn't mind giving to the cause of Christianity.

From the book "Benjamin Franklin -- An American Life" by Walter Isaacson (page 84) says:

"Because he {Franklin} believed that churches were useful to the community he paid his annual subscription to support the towns Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Jedediah Andrews"

Issacson gives sources for this which I'll post in my next post.

Did you also read the part where Issacson discusses Franklin's wariness about organized religion? That he considered himself more of a seeker, rather than a Christian?

As has been pointed out to you many, many times, the culture of that day was heavily Christian. Most social programs were through the local churches. Most social gatherings were through the churches. Finding any FF who gave money to a local church is a non-issue. It's their money, they're free to do with it as they please.

The issue comes in where public funds are concerned. I challenge you to find any passage from Franklin, Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, or even Hamilton in support of giving public funds to a church. Not instances of them giving their own money, but PUBLIC money.

As long as were trading quotes, here's one from Johnny Adams. You remember John, right? Second Prez, first VP?

The National Fast, recommended by me turned me out of office. It was connected with the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which I had no concern in. That assembly has allarmed and alienated Quakers, Anabaptists, Mennonists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, Methodists, Catholicks, protestant Episcopalians, Arians, Socinians, Armenians, & & &, Atheists and Deists might be added. A general Suspicon prevailed that the Presbyterian Church was ambitious and aimed at an Establishment of a National Church. I was represented as a Presbyterian and at the head of this political and ecclesiastical Project. The secret whisper ran through them “Let us have Jefferson, Madison, Burr, any body, whether they be Philosophers, Deists, or even Atheists, rather than a Presbyterian President.” This principle is at the bottom of the unpopularity of national Fasts and Thanksgivings. Nothing is more dreaded than the National Government meddling with Religion.

-John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812. Old Family Letters, 392-93; taken from Hutson’s The Founders on Religion, 101-02.

Yup, pretty supportive of a National Religion, isn't he?
Or, how about this one?

he United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1788
I bolded the most famous passage.

Let me repeat that bolded section

It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

If you read it carefully, you find that he doesn't deny that there could be a divine being, rather that that being was not intentionally invoked to form this government. That the US governmental workers are no more under the sway of religion than any other profession (i.e. "those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture"). Will the people who serve in government bring their religion with them, naturally. To say otherwise is to greatly misunderstand human nature, but rather it should not be the only criteria, nor should it be enacted as legislation.

 

[Cleon]

So DOC--when Franklin declared himself to be a "thorough Deist," was he lying or what?

 

[DOC]

Here are the sources Issacson uses for his statement about Ben Franklin's annual subscription to support his town's Presbyterian minister.

Ben Franklin's autobiography pg. 92 and "A history of the Presbyterian Church in America" by J.M. Wilson 1857 pages 105-112

The issue comes in where public funds are concerned. I challenge you to find any passage from Franklin, Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, or even Hamilton in support of giving public funds to a church. Not instances of them giving their own money, but PUBLIC money.

I've already talked about and given sources of all the church services that went on in the Rotunda of Congress from Jefferson's presidency all the way up to at least John Quincy Adams presidency. John Quincy Adams even mentions in his diary of overflowing church services in the Supreme Court chambers. Sounds like public support of the church to me.

 

[wahrheit]

DOC, we were talking about giving (public) money, not attending service. Your thread says "financial support of Christianity" and not "has been in a church every now and then."

 

[kmortis]

I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals, and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England some doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure.

I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that being in conducting me prosperously thro' a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, though without the smallest conceit of meriting such goodness. My sentiments on this head you will see in the copy of an old letter enclosed, which I wrote in answer to one from a zealous religionist, whom I had relieved in a paralytic case by electricity, and who, being afraid I should grow proud upon it, sent me his serious though rather impertinent caution.

P.S.... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and as I have never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all.

-Letter from Franklin to Ezra Stiles, 9 March 1790

So, he doubted Jesus' divinity (a VERY non-Christian thought, by definition) and aided many churches even though he found their beliefs to be "unsupportable and even absurd". Show me where he proposes that PUBLIC monies should be used. Or that the Government should base their rulings upon the specific tenets of any given religion. You aren't going to find it. And yes, he liked Jesus' morality. So did Jefferson. There's little wrong with most of the tenants of Jesus, especially if you stick to the Golden Rule and so on (we can ignore that pesky "set brother against father" part for now). This was a common idea with the Deists, and prevalent with the Unitarians. What religion were most of the FFs that we've been discussing? Oh yeah, Deists and Unitarians.

Oh, and do you see how this is done? As good a book as Issacson's is, it doesn't beat Franklin's words when it comes to determining what Franklin said.

Let's do some more FFs words.

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

-(Speech to the General Assembly of Virginia, 1785)

And that was James Madison^WP, the "Father of the Constitution". He "played a bigger role in designing the 1787 document than anyone else. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution." Not sounding like overwhelming support of Christianity, in particular, or religion in general, huh?

Oh and J.Q. Adams? Here's a little something from his diary...

The question about keeping the Sabbath holy as a day of rest is one of the numerous religious and political excitements which keep the free people of this Union in perpetual agitation. They seem to be generated by the condition of the country — in a state of profound peace. There are in this country, as in all others, a certain proportion of restless and turbulent spirits — poor, unoccupied, ambitious — who must always have something to quarrel about with their neighbors. These people are the authors of religious revivals.

-diary for 21 January 1844

 

[Ducky]

Well I skimmed through a few of the posts since my last post and its pretty much what I expected -- same ol', same ol', attack the messenger. But now its time to get away from DOC, and back to information about our founders and the separation of church and state issue.

It looks like Jefferson wasn't the only "supposedly" non-religious founder to give his own money to churches. Ben Franklin also didn't mind giving to the cause of Christianity.

From the book "Benjamin Franklin -- An American Life" by Walter Isaacson (page 84) says:

"Because he {Franklin} believed that churches were useful to the community he paid his annual subscription to support the towns Presbyterian minister, the Rev. Jedediah Andrews"

Issacson gives sources for this which I'll post in my next post.

Translation:

"I didn't bother to read everything because I have more crap to post because I like to willfully spread false propaganda."

It's the only explanation that fits the facts of this thread so far.

PS Doc, everything you wrote in the above quoted post has again been shown to be either misleading or false. Again.

 

[Ducky]

Here we've just shown you that you have falsely attributed a quote to someone while in the same post quoting the correct attribution, and you're not going to respond to that? Why not?

And don't try that BS about "attacking the messenger". Really, what kind of a message is it to falsely attribute a saying while at the same time quoting the correct attribution of that very saying? Tell me, what sort of message is that? Is it a message that anyone should take seriously in any way?

For DOC to answer Hawk.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No reponse from the Metropolitan Police Dept. as of this time yesterday. I contacted them via my work e-mail and won't have access for another 20 hours or so.

 

[Nova Land]

I've been wanting to get back to this thread to post regarding Thomas Jefferson and his work in 1776 on a proposed seal for the United States, which was a topic earlier in this thread. I'm running miles behind, as usual, but will return here with that eventually. But in the meantime, I think I can help regarding the question of Misty Newberry.

I'm a little surprised there is virtually nothing about this available on-line. However, I am fairly sure this is an actual person and an actual incident. I recall reading about this at the time it occurred, and I probably have some clippings or newsletters related to it (stored away in some box where I am unlikely to be able to find them any time this decade).

So I sent an e-mail to the Rutherford Institute asking if they had been involved in the case and if they had any information on it. They sent me back a speedy reply, including 4 documents related to the matter.

One of the documents was the transcript of Henderson's testimony, which has already been linked to in this thread. One was a transcript of Congressional testomony by Jay Sekulow. And one was a transcript for the July 14 1995 CNN program Talk Back Live, for which James Henderson was one of the participants. Congressional testimony and talk show appearances are notoriously unreliable as sources, and these are good examples of that. I'll come back to these items and elaborate on that in my next post.

It was the remaining item which contained what I was interested in: a newspaper clipping related to the matter. From the clipping, it becomes apparent why there is so little available about this matter on-line. There is no arrest record because Newberry was never arrested. There is no court record, because the matter never went to court. The proceeding at which Henderson represented Newberry was a local school board meeting. (In saying that, I am not trying to be dismissive of the incident. It was a newsworthy incident, and one which I think is worth knowing about.)

The newspaper clipping is listed as being from the St. Petersburg Times (Florida) for September 28, 1991. But it likely appeared in many other newspapers as well; it's one of a number of short items of religious news gathered from around the country for use in various newspapers' religion section.

Praying high school students dispersed by police

An Illinois school board has apologized for an incident in which six high school students were dispersed by police and two students were temporarily detained for taking part in a prayer rally around the school flagpole.

The Sept. 11 incident at Massac County High School in Metropolis, Ill., was filmed on videotape by the grandmother of Misty Newberry, one of the two students taken into custody by police. The police locked the students in the back of a police cruiser while they conferred with Principal Sidney R. Sexton.

Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (CASE), which represented Newberry at a school board meeting Monday night, said a police officer had warned the two detained students that if they attempted another such prayer gathering they would be arrested and charged. Sexton also called all the praying students into his office, where he lectured them about the dangers of riots and other demonstrations.

At its meeting, the local school board said it would adopt policies to insure that students are permitted to gather voluntarily for student-led prayer at the school.

"This is complete vindication for Misty Newberry and her fellow students," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for CASE in Washington. "We appreciate the board's forthright and clear admission of error. Now we plan to complete this task by turning our attention to the conduct of the Metropolis police in this matter."

A quick comment to clarify something. This clipping mentions CASE instead of ACLJ. That's not an error. CASE and ACLJ were among the various hats which Sekulow wore somewhat interchangeably during the early 1990s. There were several other sets of initials he also used, but my memory isn't good enough to recall them at the moment.

Another quick comment. Note that the date on the clipping is given as September 28, 1991. I was surprised by that because in searching for it I had been looking for something from 1992 -- the year Henderson claimed the incident occurred in his prepared testimony to Congress.

Could the Rutherford Institute have accidentally misdated the clipping? That thought occurred to me. But I was able to satisfy myself that was not the case. You see, there are 4 other stories which were included in the document they sent me (because all 5 items were part of a weekly roundup of religious news), and it was possible to confirm that several of the other items seemed clearly to be from September 1991.

 

[Nova Land]

One of the items the Rutherford Institute sent me was the transcript for CNN's "Talk Back Live" for July 14, 1995. James Henderson is a guest, and at one point he briefly brings up the Misty Newberry matter. Here is the relevant portion:

JAMES HENDERSON: ... What I'm looking for is for principals, administrators and teachers to leave students alone, where they would normally react, where their hackles might rise, because they hear a religious expression. I just have too many clients, and I'm not going to leave it go with Janet, who suffered, unfortunately, as a child. But I will tell you, Misty Newberry in Metropolis, Illinois in 1993, was grabbed by a police officer and thrown into the back of a police car and threatened with a can of mace because she participated in See You at the Pole, a national day of student prayer, before the school day began.

That's the entirety of Henderson's mention of Newberry in that program, although I suspect he has managed to work mention of her into numerous others of his speeches and media appearances. It has the feel of something he liked to trot out at any opportunity. (The lack of on-line mentions of it now, even at the ACLJ site, indicates he may no longer be as fond of doing that.)

Note that he appears to have gotten the date wrong in this tv appearance -- 1993 instead of 1991. It's an easy mistake to make, but it does indicate that he is not careful with his facts. I am therefore inclined to treat phrases such as "grabbed by a police officer" and "thrown into the back of a police car" as colorful descriptions which may or may not be accurate representations of what occurred.

 

[Nova Land]

US already provided a link for Henderson's Congressional testimony (which is the only one of these items which appears to be available on-line). I think it's worth quoting a brief portion of it, so that people who don't care to click links can get the gist of it (and so that it will be here in the future, even if the link should expire):

The National Day of Student Prayer: Arrest You At The Pole

Metropolis, Illinois, fancies itself the hometown of that legendary man of steel, Superman. Located in Massac County, just atop the Illinois-Kentucky border, Metropolis became a key flash point in the struggle over the right of the people to acknowledge their religion and religious heritage in public school settings. In September, 1992, Misty Newberry was a senior at Massac County High School. No slouch, no troublemaker, Misty had excellent grades, a good reputation, and had received the school's recognition for her volunteer service in the school's administrative offices. But the clouded perception of public officials regarding the right of Misty and other students to join together in prayer before the school day began soon led to threats against her reputation and her honors, and to her arrest and confinement like an accused criminal in a police cruiser...

I commented earlier that Congressional testimony is notoriously unreliable. Henderson's testimony is a good example of that. It seems clear to me, in reading this, that Henderson is far more interested in painting a colorful picture with his words than in getting his facts straight.

There is a very low ratio of relevant facts to opinion and rhetoric in this paragraph. And of the few facts Henderson presents, he gets at least two of them wrong.

As I noted previously, the date of the incident was September 1991. It's one thing for Henderson to have gotten the date wrong (as 1993) in his CNN appearance. That could be a simple slip of the tongue (or an error of the transcriber). But getting the date wrong in prepared testimony?

Note, too, that almost buried inside all the emotionally loaded rhetoric -- "threats against her reputation and her honors", "confinement like an accused criminal" -- Henderson manages to get another key fact wrong. Misty Newberry was never placed under arrest.

My general rule, in considering what people say and trying to evaluate how much weight to give to their words, is that if they cannot be relied on to report the objective facts of a matter plainly and fairly then their statements on subjective matters should not be accorded much weight either.

And that's what most of Henderson's testimony is: subjective. How well-behaved and respectful the demonstrators were (and regardless of the fact that the focus of their demonstration was to engage in public prayer, this was a demonstration), how clouded the judgment of the school officials was, and how rude or abusive the police officers were, are all good questions to ask. But Henderson clearly is not a good person to look to for answers on these matters.

 

[Nova Land]

Lastly, here is the portion of Jay Sekulow's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee relating to Misty Newberry:

prepared testimony of Jay Alan Sekulow (chief counsel of ACLJ)
July 23, 1996

... Some past and present examples of these losses of religious liberty illustrate the problem, and the need for a permanent solution.

Misty Newberry was a student at Massac County High School in Metropolis, Illinois, who organized an annual prayer event four years ago at her school. That event, "See You At The Pole," was, and is, a national event for high school students to gather once a year around the flag pole in front of their public high school, to pray for their fellow students, their teachers and administrators, their school, their nation, and its leaders. The gathering occurs in the morning before school begins, with students arriving early in order to participate without having to skip classes to do so.

Weeks in advance, Misty asked permission from school authorities to hold the event. She never received any response to that request. Seeing no harm in going forward with their plans, Misty and a few other students gathered in front of the Massac County High School to pray, prior to the beginning of the school day. The students formed a circle around the flag pole, held hands, and bowed their heads in prayer.

The principal observed the prayer circle activity and called the office of the superintendent of schools to seek guidance. He was directed immediately to seek law enforcement assistance in breaking up the gathering. He did so. Soon, the police and county sheriffs arrived on the scene.

Two officers approached the students. One peace officer shouted at the students to stop, and when the students continued their prayer vigil, the officer threatened to spray them with mace. Eventually, the officers forcibly broke up the event. They seized and then handcuffed Misty Newberry and another student, and carted them away to their cruiser. (The entire altercation was recorded on video tape.) After our investigation and intervention on their behalf, the Massac County Board of Education issued a public apology and cleared the way for Misty to organize another attempt at observing "See You At The Pole." Ultimately, the police force and the town settled with Misty Newberry out of court, paying her several thousand dollars.

The point of this story is not that Ms. Newberry was able to get help, but that school officials and police believed it was just fine to have the police arrest students for praying in front of a school in a manner that was peaceful and nondisruptive. We need a religious freedom amendment to solve this problem once and for all.

Much of Sekulow's account depends on the words he has chosen rather than on the facts presented. "One peace officer shouted..." "; forcibly broke up..."; "seized..." These phrases paint a vivid picture, but not necessarily an accurate one.

One sentence in particular deserves a close look as an example of Sekulow's rhetorical skill: "The point of this story is not that Ms. Newberry was able to get help, but that school officials and police believed it was just fine to have the police arrest students for praying in front of a school in a manner that was peaceful and nondisruptive."

As I've already pointed out, it would be factually inaccurate to say that Misty Newberry was arrested. But Sekulow doesn't actually say that! What he says is that school officials and police believed it would be okay to arrest students. It's possible Sekulow did intend to say the students were arrested, and had simply forgotten the facts. Or it's possible that Sekulow was over-simpliflying -- using the word "arrest" to describe the situation even though that's not what actually occurred. But it's also possible he is engaging in a bit of carefully calculated deception -- implying Misty Newberry was arrested, but saying something which is if read carefully not actually saying that. If his listeners get the wrong impression, and jump to the conclusion an arrest occurred even though it didn't -- well, he didn't actually say she was arrested, did he, so surely that's not his fault...

It would be interesting to see the video which is referred to. That would be the best way to judge the behavior of the police officers in this incident. I am quite prepared to believe that they did behave as badly as Henderson and Sekulow attempt to portray their behavior. I recall a number of incidents during the '60s and '70s where anti-war, anti-nuclear, and other demonstrators were treated in this fashion, so it is not at all beyond the bounds of reason that religious demonstrators were mistreated in this fashion as well. But neither Henderson nor Sekulow impresses me as a reliable source upon which to base that conclusion.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Thanks for requesting and post that information Nova Land. I think we can clearly conclude that Misty Newburry was not arrested for praying.