In [ __ ] We Trust

This past Sunday in the Austin American Statesman, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Ken Herman enlightens us on his views in regards to U.S. District Court Judge Fred Biery (San Antonio) and his recent decision to settle a case in regards to the existence of prayer in a Texas public school.  Biery, appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton in 1994, has been criticized for his decision by many GOP politicians including Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, which of course shines a light on this case during a presidential election year.

Under the settlement, Herman explains: “Medina Valley school employees cannot join students in prayer circles or invite people to pray, and religious symbols are barred from display on school grounds.”  Any efforts to offer prayers at events such as football games or during graduation ceremonies must be introduced as “student remarks”.

The case, filed last May, involves an agnostic high school senior, whose parents filed a lawsuit requesting that organized prayer no longer be allowed in public schools, particularly the upcoming Medina Valley High School graduation ceremony.  Judge Biery ruled in favor of the family by issuing a temporary order barring students from asking audience members to join in prayer or to bow their heads.  In early June, a day before the graduation ceremony, the ruling was overturned by Gov. Rick Perry and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.  As a result, the valedictorian indeed led the crowd in prayer during the graduation ceremony.

As stated in the title of his article, Herman believes that the "Judge brings us back to the real issue in [this] school prayer case”.  Ironically, the author believes that the "real issue" is not the right to pray but the right to limit government’s ability to force religious practice upon those who choose not to participate.  According to Herman, “there is nothing wrong with the school prayer discussions spilling over into our political discourse, which remains the best place for us to argue about things like this.  But sometimes things go too far…Looks like this is one of those times.”  

I agree that the settlement went too far and I believe that it is not necessarily the court’s responsibility to decide how we pray (or don't pray), however I disagree about the “real issue”.  I believe that the "real issue" truly is about prayer and religion.  My belief stems from the fact that conservatives who say they want to minimize the size of government, like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, continue to express that when it comes to religion, reducing the size of government does not apply.  It looks like "the right" will continue to fight to make the issue of religious practices of the majority a political issue.  

As someone who classifies themselves as a Christian, I am pleased that this country was founded on such wonderful, historical values of Christian love, forgiveness and equality but we should never substitute religious values for Constitutional rights which unfortunately I think is exactly what has happened in this case.  I just hope that cases such as this are continuously challenged and brought to the forefront so that our Constitution at some point will become a practice and not just a theory.

To Redistrict or Not to Redistrict

In this month’s issue of the Texas Monthly, deputy editor Brian D. Sweany exposes the drama of the ongoing legislative debate over the Texas redistricting map.  In his article titled “Mappily Ever After”  he states that the redistricting issue is one that consistently leaves voters feeling frustrated, angry and at times confused.

This past January the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments in regards to the interim maps for Texas congressional and legislative districts.  These maps were created by a federal court in San Antonio last November.  The changes to the electoral maps were required because Texas grew by more than four million people in the last decade, with about 65 percent of that growth coming in the Hispanic population. The growth entitled the state to four additional House seats.  Sweany explains that the redistricting process has been a tactic used for decades by political parties to win votes, while bringing about “bloody partisan warfare” and spending millions of dollars on litigation in the process.

The bulk of the article focuses on state senator Jeff Wentworth's proposal to eliminate the bipartisanship of redistricting. Wentworth has sponsored several bills on redistricting in previous sessions that would have created an independent, bipartisan commission to remove the Legislature from the process.  In previous years, Wentworth’s plan passed the Senate a few times but none have ever made it passed the House. 

Depending upon the Supreme Court’s ruling (scheduled to be released by February 3rd) the upcoming Texas primaries could be delayed for the second time this year.  If this case of redistricting is not resolved soon, the outcome could greatly influence the votes in favor of one party and possibly frustrate voters even more.  To read the entire article click here