Same Ten Commandments -- Different Outcome

by Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst, Citizenlink.org (12/20/05)

SUMMARY: An appeals court rules an Ohio display is constitutional.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a courthouse display today which is essentially identical to the one struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in last summer's McCreary County case. The difference turned on religious motivation -- or in this case, the lack thereof.

The decision was notable for its rejection of the ACLU's argument that the ACLU was offended:

"And the ACLU, an organization whose mission is 'to ensure that . . . the government (is kept) out of the religion business,' does not embody the reasonable person," the opinion read.

Then the court went on to kick a hole in the old "separation of church and state" mantra:

"The ACLU's argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to 'the separation of church and state.' This extra-constitutionalconstruct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state."

And, reasonably enough, the court said that a public display of the Ten Commandments does not equal a government endorsement of religion:

"We will not presume endorsement from the mere display of the Ten Commandments. If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation's cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto."

"The Mercer County display has a secular purpose. Unlike McCreary County, there is nothing in the legislative history or implementation that tends to prove a religiouspurpose. Nor does the display have the effect of endorsing religion. The display is therefore constitutional as a matter of law."

Now, if someone could just explain to me how identical displays in separate counties should constitutionally receive different treatment because of the subjectiveintent of the people that authorized them, then -- well, never mind, it's not really explainable.

Scientist Lied About Embryonic Stem-Cell Research Breakthrough

Citizenlink.org (12/16/05)

Hype about advances in embryonic stem-cell research coming from South Korean scientists was based on faked research, the Los Angeles Time reported.

Hwang Woo-suk published his alleged findings in the journal Science, describing his ability to clone embryos using DNA from sick patients to create personalizedstem-cell treatments.

Later Hwang told associate Roh Sung-il, an executive at MizMedi Hospital in Seoul, the research was faked because his stem-cell lines had died.

"If it's true, it's going to go down as probably the biggest scandal in science," said Insoo Hyun, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "Even cold fusion didn't get this worldwide attention."

For more details on the scandal, read this article by Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute.

QUOTE OF THE MONTH

“What could be more inclusive and non-offensive than publicly and civilly acknowledging our religious beliefs and differences, rather than pretending we are a monolithic, secular, non-religious nation of the easily offended?”

-- Stuart Shepard, managing editor, Citizenlink.org

Click here to read the rest of his commentary.

Jaguar and Land Rover No Longer Advertising in Gay Magazines

-- Citizenlink.org, 12/5/05

The American Family Association (AFA) called off its threatened boycott of Ford Motor Co. last week after the company agreed to stop advertising two of its brands in gay media.

A Ford spokesman confirmed to Advocate.com Friday that the company will stop advertising Jaguars and Land Rovers in gay publications -- but insisted it was strictly a business decision.

AFA had threatened a boycott in May. Ford had long been a regular advertiser within gay media and had donated to homosexual causes and nonprofit groups.

AFA Chairman Don Wildmon credited Ford dealers with opening up the lines of communication with corporate officials.

"They've heard our concerns; they have responded, we think, in a very positive way. We've opened lines of communication, we think those lines of communication willstay open," he said. "Obviously there are still some small matters of difference, as people will always have, but generally speaking, we are pleased with the results."

FCC Chair Calls for Channel Choice

Citizenlink.org, 11/30/05

Kevin Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), told a forum of lawmakers and regulators Tuesday that not only should the cable and satellite industry clean up indecency on television, but also allow subscribers to choose what channels enter their home.

"Cable and satellite television offer some great family-oriented choices, but parents cannot subscribe to those channels alone," Martin said. "Rather, they are forced to buy the channels they do not want their families to view in order to obtain the family-friendly channels they desire.

"I think the industry needs to do more to address parents' concerns," he added. "You can always turn the television off and block the channels you don't want. But why should you have to?"

Critics of channel choice, also known as a la carte, say parental controls -- like the v-chip -- can block indecent programming and are already in place. Parents just need to use them.

"It's four clicks and a scroll on the remote," Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, told the Los Angeles Times.

Many religious broadcasters are also concerned about channel choice, since bundled programming opens the door for them to get into homes.

Martin said that while parental controls can help, the cable and satellite industry needs to address the concerns of the families they serve.

"Sixty-six percent of people believe there is too much violence on television and 58 percent believe there is too much cursing and sexual language," he said. "Seventy-five percent of people favored tighter enforcement of government rules on television content during hours when children are most likely to be watching."

Martin suggests that cable and satellite operators explore many alternatives such as offering family-friendly bundles or a la carte subscriptions. He said if the industry refuses, "basic indecency and profanity restrictions may be a viable alternative that should be considered."

Daniel Weiss, senior analyst for media and sexuality for Focus on the Family Action, said Martin has been a strong advocate of the family since he first became a commissioner.

"Chairman Martin clearly understands the dangers posed to children by highly sexualized media and he also recognizes that the industry has not been acting in the best interests of children," Weiss said. "The time has come for industry leaders to start working to find solutions to the problems they've created, rather than pushing the responsibility back to parents only.

"Chairman Martin is committed to working with the industry to find the best-possible solution for families," he said. "We hope the industry will have that same dedication."