Video: County commissioner violates federal judge’s order, mentions Jesus at meeting

posted at 10:01 am on March 28, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Can a public official mention Jesus at an official meeting? According to a federal judge in Maryland, the answer is no. According to Carroll County commissioner Robin Frazier, it’s yes — and she’s willing to go to jail to defend what she sees is her right to free speech and religious expression:

“Out of respect for my colleagues — I’m not sure how strongly they feel about it. I’m willing to go to jail over it,” Frazier said during the meeting, referring to Jesus Christ twice despite the ruling.

“(Let) the Lord Jesus Christ to admit me to render these deserved thanks and praises for thy manifold mercies extended toward me. Let thy blessings guide this day, and forever, through Jesus Christ and his blessed form of prayer, I conclude my weak petitions,” she said during the meeting.

After receiving complaints, some Carroll County residents and a group called American Humanist Association issued a warning to the board about “sectarian prayer” during meetings in 2012 and then followed up with a lawsuit in April 2013.

“After the judge has already agreed with us that that’s what’s going on, I think it’s particularly troubling that one of the council members saw fit to violate not only the Constitution but the judge’s very specifically ruling that they can’t be doing this,” said Monica Miller, an attorney for the American Humanist Association.

This fellow seemed to have the best take on the situation:

“My concern is, really, who cares? If they say Jesus, I mean, does it really offend anybody?” questioned resident Brian Resch.

The question is really this: do people have a right to be free from offense at board meetings? After all, Carroll County isn’t establishing a “county religion” by having one of its members pray openly. No one else’s rights to faith or lack thereof have been infringed; the local government isn’t taking roll at the local church to make sure everyone attends. The imposition of silence on religious expression by the judiciary, fueled by those who simply cannot abide the expression of faith, causes more egregious damage toward liberty than a prayer at a board meeting or school graduation does.

There is no doubt that Frazier’s act is deliberately provocative, and one can debate whether that’s an effective witness to faith or not in terms of charity and goodwill. However, isn’t the remedy at hand the next election, rather than a gag order from the federal government?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

If she’s acting in her public office, it is wrong. If she is forcing her religious beliefs on others, it’s just bad manners.

aniptofar on March 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

“My concern is, really, who cares? If they say Jesus, I mean, does it really offend anybody?” questioned resident Brian Resch.

Actually yes, there are nutcases who are offended by what other people believe. In one of today’s bigger linguistic jokes, they’re called the tolerant ones.

Fenris on March 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Let’s go over the 1st Amendment, shall we?

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.

Can someone point out to me the part where it says ‘separation of church and state’? Is this councilwoman passing a law respecting the establishment of a religion? No. Is she freely exercising her religion? Yes. Why is this so difficult?

NotCoach on March 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM

Good for her….the quote below I find quite troubling.
Particularly the bolded print.

So we have been reduced to a Nation governed by Judges??

“After the judge has already agreed with us that that’s what’s going on, I think it’s particularly troubling that one of the council members saw fit to violate not only the Constitution but the judge’s very specifically ruling that they can’t be doing this,” said Monica Miller, an attorney for the American Humanist Association.

ToddPA on March 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

There is no doubt that Frazier’s act is deliberately provocative, and one can debate whether that’s an effective witness to faith or not in terms of charity and goodwill.

“What are we going to do with these men?” they asked… to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn them to speak no longer to anyone in this name.”

Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges!” -Acts 4

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

If she’s acting in her public office, it is wrong. If she is forcing her religious beliefs on others, it’s just bad manners.

aniptofar on March 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

No it is not. A person’s right to exercise their religion does not stop at the public building door. Not only that it is a violation of a person’s free speech rights to say they can’t mention Jesus during a public hearing. There is no separation of church of state, only a prohibition on making laws to establish a state religion.

NotCoach on March 28, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Atheist activists are some of the stupidest and annoying groups out there. Rejection of religion IS their religion. Only hippies crying at trees can trump the pointlessness of their existence.

Mord on March 28, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Allahu Akbar

Electrongod on March 28, 2014 at 10:11 AM

May God grant us the wisdom to discover right, the will to choose it, and the strength to make it endure. Amen.

BigGator5 on March 28, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:09 AM

I don’t disagree, but I think it’s open for reasonable differences of opinion on effectiveness.

Ed Morrissey on March 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM

The judge should be asked to quote the Constitution, so we’ll know what he’s basing his ruling on. Because I can’t find anything resembling a basis for it. Nothing.

I can find where she has the right of free exercise of religion, though.

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM

one can debate whether that’s an effective witness to faith or not in terms of charity and goodwill.

So, to promote goodwill, she should not mention Jesus to appease the American Humanist Association? I’m not sure I see your point, Ed. “Sit down and shut up” is a better witness?

HornHiAceDeuce on March 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM

I don’t disagree, but I think it’s open for reasonable differences of opinion on effectiveness. Ed Morrissey on March 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Peter and John were pretty effective.

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM

I suspect the reaction here would be somewhat different if you replaced “Jesus” with “Allah.”

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM

If she’s acting in her public office, it is wrong. If she is forcing her religious beliefs on others, it’s just bad manners.

aniptofar on March 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Praying out loud is not forcing religious beliefs on anyone. Are you concerned that if you hear someone pray, you are somehow going to spontaneously turn into a Christian? It really doesn’t work that way. The idea that people have some right to never see or hear someone’s expression of faith is just bizarre, imo.

mbs on March 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Good for her!

Screw the judge.

Let the intolerant babboons on the left stick their fingers in their ears and recite

“Lalalala I can’t hear you”

txdoc on March 28, 2014 at 10:16 AM

There is no doubt that Frazier’s act is deliberately provocative

Yep. She has the right to be offensive and we do not have the right to not be offended. I think the judge’s order is over the top.

MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:16 AM

I suspect the reaction here would be somewhat different if you replaced “Jesus” with “Allah.” Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM

How so?

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:16 AM

However, isn’t the remedy at hand the next election, rather than a gag order from the federal government?

See, that’s the problem – the voters might not vote the way the fereral government wants them to.

DamnCat on March 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM

And if she were Muslim and insisted on praying to Allah they would distribute free prayer rugs at the door and nail a plaque on the wall that points toward Mecca. As long as no attempt is made to compel or force others to join them, there isn’t a damn thing wrong with a public official praying to the deity of their choice at any time. This whole “Freedom From Religion” nonsense needs to stop. If this citizen is found in contempt by the judge, will the sheriff execute the arrest warrant to throw her in jail for praying? What has happened to our world . . .

sewer urchin on March 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Federal judges need to be told to GFY in cases like this.

ConstantineXI on March 28, 2014 at 10:17 AM

I have a question. Who is going to put her in jail?

A federal judge having a temper tantrum? Does anybody think the US Marshals Service is going to go arrest her and book her on a civil bench warrant? Or the US Attorney is going to prosecute her for contempt?

I think she’s going to win this little skirmish no matter what happens.

platypus on March 28, 2014 at 10:18 AM

How so?

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:16 AM

How would you react if she had said, Jesus is a fraud and a lie?

MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:18 AM

I suspect the reaction here would be somewhat different if you replaced “Jesus” with “Allah.”

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM

I suspect know you’re a dim bulb.

She can mention Allah all she wants. She can even convert to Islam during one of these meetings and begin praying to Mecca. She ultimately answers to the voters, not the capricious and fascist whims of a judge.

NotCoach on March 28, 2014 at 10:18 AM

How would you react if she had said, Jesus is a fraud and a lie?

MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:18 AM

And another dim bulb rears his ugly head.

People might react angrily. So what? Does that mean we need a judge to gag her? Or people vote her out instead?

NotCoach on March 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM

“I don’t think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying ‘Jehovah’.”

You’d better make sure all of the women remember to wear their fake beards when they come to the stoning.

FooBear on March 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM

How would you react if she had said, Jesus is a fraud and a lie? MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Um, vote against her?

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM

I suspect the reaction here would be somewhat different if you replaced “Jesus” with “Allah.”

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM

I don’t know about that, but I KNOW the reaction amongst the Aetheists would be completely different.

CDeb on March 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

I suspect the reaction here would be somewhat different if you replaced “Jesus” with “Allah.”

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Yes, we would all demand that she go to jail./s

sentinelrules on March 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

“I don’t disagree, but I think it’s open for reasonable differences of opinion on effectiveness.
Ed Morrissey on March 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM”

It will be as effective as God wants it to be, no more and no less.

tommyboy on March 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

There is no doubt that Frazier’s act is deliberately provocative

She performed the same act before and after the suit. How can you have no doubt that it was deliberately provocative? Sounds more like her usual routine. At least a possibility, no?

Ronnie on March 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

I’m not sure I see your point, Ed. “Sit down and shut up” is a better witness?

HornHiAceDeuce on March 28, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Did I write that? Does my writing at Hot Air even remotely suggest that? Why would I feature this story if I believed that? Just because I recognize that a long-running debate on how best to testify exists does not mean I think that people shouldn’t testify at all.

Seriously, you must really want to be offended to get that out of my post.

Ed Morrissey on March 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

I suspect the reaction here would be somewhat different if you replaced “Jesus” with “Allah.”

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Not really…I believe they may already be doing that in Deerborn.

A person at these types of meetings can refer to ANY religious
figure they choose, provided others have the same privilege.

What this judge did was take that away. Sorry, but that’s
Unconstitutional….and this Deranged Group thinks what a
Judge Rules, irregardless if that Ruling violates the Constitution,
is the Final Decision that Supercedes EVERYTHING.

VERY DANGEROUS.

ToddPA on March 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

I tend to interpret our Bill of Rights and enabling people to engage in their freedoms without government restraint.

So when it comes to cases like this, I can’t help but side against the people who want to use the Bill of Rights to make the government stop people from exercising their freedoms.

bettercallputin on March 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

This is the stuff we concern ourselves with while Putin is on the march…

– Gay rights
– Global warming
– Obamacare wealth redistribution scheme
– Income inequality
– Spying on Americans
– Expanding the welfare state
– Ignoring immigration law
– Unionizing college football athletes
– etc…
– etc…

And we wonder why we have become an international joke???…

PatriotRider on March 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

This is completely insane. Mentioning Jesus does not constitute and effort to establish a state religion. It’s not even close.

forest on March 28, 2014 at 10:23 AM

I don’t know about that, but I KNOW the reaction amongst the Aetheists would be completely different.

CDeb on March 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

*atheists

And no, you don’t “know” that. You suspect that.

Atheists are not fond of any public official of any religion trying to turn public meetings into their own personal Statements of Faith.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM

This is called pushback.

CurtZHP on March 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM

NotCoach on March 28, 2014 at 10:19 AM

You’re calling me dumb? You’re the illiterate one. Read what I said on the topic. Read slowly if it helps:

Yep. She has the right to be offensive and we do not have the right to not be offended. I think the judge’s order is over the top.

MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:16 AM

MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Saw what state this was occurring in and where the judge was…Maryland…what a shock. /sarc off

conservative5 on March 28, 2014 at 10:25 AM

Just recite the pledge of allegiance. It mentions God but has gotten the tradition exemption in court rulings. Still annoys the progressive left types though; if that is your purpose.

KW64 on March 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

PatriotRider on March 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

You are so twentieth century. Jugears said so.

platypus on March 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Atheists are not fond of any public official of any religion trying to turn public meetings into their own personal Statements of Faith.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Which is evident from their long history of demanding all expressions of Islam being removed from the public square.

CDeb on March 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Atheists are not fond of any public official of any religion trying to turn public meetings into their own personal Statements of Faith.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM

You have no Constitutional right to fondness.

Ronnie on March 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

Um, vote against her?

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:20 AM

Then I congratulate you on your good sense.

MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

It is time to start telling most of the politically motivated and agenda driven Federal judges to go F*^k themselves…they really have no interest in or respect for the real application of laws anyway…

cp3984 on March 28, 2014 at 10:27 AM

“My concern is, really, who cares? If they say Jesus, I mean, does it really offend anybody?” questioned resident Brian Resch.

Actually yes, there are nutcases who are offended by what other people believe. In one of today’s bigger linguistic jokes, they’re called the tolerant ones.

Fenris on March 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

.
More to the point: … the members of the American Humanist Association (and their attorney Monica Miller) are demanding to NOT experience any sights or sounds of Christians practicing their Christianity, enter their eyes and ears.

But of course they wouldn’t stop there, anyway … even if we did concede to keeping the sights and sounds of us practicing our Christianity inside the walls of our homes and whatever buildings serve as our local church gathering places.
.
But we are not supposed to concede to keeping our Christianity “to ourselves.”

listens2glenn on March 28, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Good for her. Jesus is Lord. Don’t like it? Too bad.

Whitey Ford on March 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM

However, isn’t the remedy at hand the next election, rather than a gag order from the federal government?

Yes.

Unless the Federal government is sitting on top of you with all its weight. Then whatcha gonna do?

Lance Corvette on March 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM

If she’s acting in her public office, it is wrong. If she is forcing her religious beliefs on others, it’s just bad manners.

aniptofar on March 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

How strange – you would think that “forcing her religious beliefs on others” would be what was considered “wrong” and what you seem to feel is “wrong” would be just her expressing her freedom of religion.

katiejane on March 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM

You have no Constitutional right to fondness.

Ronnie on March 28, 2014 at 10:26 AM

We do have the right to say what we think of believers trying to hijack public forums in the name of their god(s), regardless of how innocuous you think it may be.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

PatriotRider on March 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Wow, you’re so concerned about important stuff and all.

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Good for her. Jesus is Lord. Don’t like it? Too bad.

Whitey Ford on March 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Vishnu disagrees. And so does Allah.

Don’t like it?

Too bad.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Back in the olden days, athiests just wanted to be left alone to live their lives. I could respct that.

These days its a diffent world. Christians now need to ackknowledge that athiest ways are better.

Wierd.

Deafdog on March 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM

We do have the right to say what we think of believers trying to hijack public forums in the name of their god(s), regardless of how innocuous you think it may be.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Right to say = jail time?

sentinelrules on March 28, 2014 at 10:31 AM

The first amendment prohibits the federal govt from establishing a national religion, it does not prohibit the states from establishing a state religion!!

KenInIL on March 28, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Vishnu disagrees. And so does Allah.

Don’t like it?

Too bad.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

We pray for your salvation, but let’s try and stay on point. This isn’t about your hatred of God, but about freedom of speech and religion. Do you agree with the judges fascist order?

NotCoach on March 28, 2014 at 10:32 AM

Good for her.

Our mayor says a prayer at the opening of every city council meeting. We had one guy try to shut the previous mayor up and make him stop saying the prayer, but that was because of a personal vendetta. That mayor was voted out of office. The current mayor continued the prayer at the beginning of the meeting.

cptacek on March 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM

There is no doubt that Frazier’s act is deliberately provocative, and one can debate whether that’s an effective witness to faith or not in terms of charity and goodwill.

A true act of civil disobedience includes a willingness to take on the consequences, even going to jail, for one’s belief.

BigGator5 on March 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM

said Monica Miller, an attorney for the American Humanist Association.

Hmmm… Didn’t some other court rule that Humanism was a religion? If Humanist attorneys can be involved in this, doesn’t it make it kind of a religious squabble?

Is this really the best use of our courts to suppress the free exercise of members, even as public employees, of one religion with the counsel of another religion?

Okay, let’s say I just made an Appeal to Authority, there. Yes, judges have decided that Humanism was a religion, but they were wrong. But isn’t it Miller’s argument that the ruling of this other judge can be a test of free exerceise? So both are Appeals to Authority, and you can’t destabilize one without destabilizing the other. Because both are judgments of fallible human beings, who happen to be judges.

Axeman on March 28, 2014 at 10:33 AM

So brave. You Christian’s are so persecuted! It must be so hard being such a minority in this country.

beverlyfreaks on March 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM

If she’s acting in her public office, it is wrong. If she is forcing her religious beliefs on others, it’s just bad manners.

aniptofar on March 28, 2014 at 10:05 AM

.
You have to define what constitutes “forcing our religious beliefs on others”.

What Robin Frazier did, wasn’t the “Spanish Inquisition”.

There was no demand that anyone else agree with her, or give recognition to her God.

listens2glenn on March 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Uy. Do these “humanists” have nothing better to do with their pathetic lives? More intolerant “liberals.”

WhatSlushfund on March 28, 2014 at 10:35 AM

We do have the right to say what we think of believers trying to hijack public forums in the name of their god(s), regardless of how innocuous you think it may be.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

Who’s hijacking? She was elected. Elect an atheist/muslim/buddhist/satanist and they can open the meeting as they see fit.

Fenris on March 28, 2014 at 10:35 AM

The question is really this: do people have a right to be free from offense at board meetings?

Hmm, freedom of religion is in the Bill of Rights. Where did any of the Founding Fathers or any Enlightenment writer state that there is a right to be free from offense?

I’d posit that if you are never offended by anything anywhere in life then you have lived the most meager of lives.

rbj on March 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

If a government is powerful enough to keep you from saying Jesus.. they can also make you say Jesus! Or any other name!

We see this happening in government run schools.. where the school has removed any reference to Jesus or the 10 commandments.. and then begin mandating Islamic studies.

It is really nobodies business. If the people do not like her being a Christian.. they can vote her out.

I would support her right even if she prayed to the tooth fairy at a government meeting. It is called freedom. And if she abuses that freedom.. the people can vote her out.

JellyToast on March 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

So brave. You Christian’s are so persecuted! It must be so hard being such a minority in this country.

beverlyfreaks
on March 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM

.
Thank you … thank you . . . . . we take our “persecution” with great pride … : )

listens2glenn on March 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

So brave. You Christian’s are so persecuted! It must be so hard being such a minority in this country.

beverlyfreaks on March 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM

It must be so hard being a Freak on this site..

ToddPA on March 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

We do have the right to say what we think of believers trying to hijack public forums in the name of their god(s), regardless of how innocuous you think it may be.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

No sh!t, Captain Obvious. And she has the right to say what she wants to say too. She didn’t hijack anyone. Spare me the hyperbole.

Ronnie on March 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

It will be as effective as God wants it to be, no more and no less.

tommyboy on March 28, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Love this.
May we be faithful and let the Lord and His Word accomplish His intended purpose.

22044 on March 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

OT:

Michigan’s governor said the state would not recognize gay marriage because the state will be appealing the ruling. Holder just stepped on Michigan and gave teh gheys federal recognition.

dbilly76 on March 28, 2014 at 10:37 AM

There is no doubt that Frazier’s act is deliberately provocative, and one can debate whether that’s an effective witness to faith or not in terms of charity and goodwill.

Which describes any number of ACLU cases that we know by name.

Scopes was recruited from New York state by the ACLU for the purpose of teaching in Kentucky. Griswold was a setup, as was Roe, and from what I’ve read, so was Lawrence.

Because some lib lawyers sit somewhere and decides where our laws should be and what precedents they need, and how the aristocratic court is going to keep the people checked.

Axeman on March 28, 2014 at 10:38 AM

She is an elected representative of the people who is exercising her office in a way she sees fit while not infringing on the rights of any constituency. Her reference to Jesus Christ is no more the official position of the county government than the ramblings of Alan Grayson are the official position of the United States.

If she were to participate in passing a law that applied only to Christians or if she required a community member to pray with her prior to hearing his petition to the commission, then she is crossing a line. She is preventing someone from being treated equally under the law. In this case, she as an American citizen is exercising her first amendment rights. This is EXACTLY what the first amendment is intended to allow.

If the people who elected her disagree with her religious beliefs or feel those beliefs are influencing her position unjustly the law has given them an avenue to address that concern: an election.

bublite on March 28, 2014 at 10:40 AM

You Christian’s are so persecuted!

beverlyfreaks on March 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Your English teacher should be persecuted.

Ronnie on March 28, 2014 at 10:40 AM

Atheists are not fond of any public official of any religion trying to turn public meetings into their own personal Statements of Faith. Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM

And normal people understand that she has every right to do whatever she wants, and if her behavior displeases her constituents they can vote her out.

I guess when a guy has no real principles to speak of, he has to make up stuff to get all harelipped about.

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM

I think us Christians (and gun owners, but that’s a topic for another day) need to start taking pages out of the ‘victim studies’ playbook in situations like these. You’ll notice Ms. Frazier is not out there in front of the cameras screeching about religious discrimination (think CAIR) over this. I posit that she (and others like her) should be doing those things. It’s time that we started acting as though we are being persecuted daily (because we are), and demand reparations. Decry ‘activist’ judges that make these anti-Christian rulings. There are so many ‘silent’ Christians in this country that are just OK with slight after slight against us.

I know we are taught to turn the other cheek, but it’s getting ridiculous at this point.

It’s time to stand up and fight.

nullrouted on March 28, 2014 at 10:42 AM

We do have the right to say what we think of believers trying to hijack public forums in the name of their god(s), regardless of how innocuous you think it may be.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

You have the right to say whatever you want, pal. I would suggest you read the following CAREFULLY…SLOWLY, If you must, just so it will sink in:

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.

Where, oh where does it even imply that public forums cannot be places in which to express our religious views? Please enlighten us, oh atheist whiner.

bimmcorp on March 28, 2014 at 10:43 AM

We do have the right to say what we think of believers trying to hijack public forums in the name of their god(s), regardless of how innocuous you think it may be.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:29 AM

but you don’t have the right (besides voting her out) to silence her by force of law.
which is the whole point here.

dmacleo on March 28, 2014 at 10:43 AM

Seriously, you must really want to be offended to get that out of my post.

Ed Morrissey on March 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

How am I offended? You invited a debate on effective witness, and I inferred that is could be argued that her not mentioning Jesus might be a better tactic. I am just saying that not mentioning Jesus might have smoothed over the conflict at hand in her County Commission meeting, but I’d argue that it would not be an effective witness of her faith (Akzed’s post provides a nice scriptural reference to my point).

What were her options? 1) Not mention Jesus at all, 2) do what she normally does, or 3) try to find a way to mention Jesus that would not offend and/or comply with the order. I’m glad she picked #2. I took your comment to imply that #1 or #3 were better choices. I disagree. Sorry I misunderstood.

HornHiAceDeuce on March 28, 2014 at 10:43 AM

There is no separation of church of state, only a prohibition on making laws to establish a state religion.

NotCoach on March 28, 2014 at 10:10 AM

Hey, that slope has been confirmed slippery!!

If you argue that x leads to y, a progressive is bound to pound the can and say “That’s a Slippery Slope fallacy!” Because liberals (and libertarians) are the only ones who can spot a true slippery slope.

Also, working for liberals (and some libertarians) are narrow dichotomies and special pleadings as well as not noticing how well begging the question works to prove their points that just “make sense” to them.

Axeman on March 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM

The first amendment prohibits the federal govt from establishing a national religion, it does not prohibit the states from establishing a state religion!! KenInIL on March 28, 2014 at 10:32 AM

There were several state churches when the Constitution as ratified. Some people like to pretend there weren’t.

“The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” -Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1811-1845, founder of Harvard Law School, Commentaries on the Constitution, Vol. II, 1871 (1833).

But what’s he know about anything.

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM

This whole idea that we’ve somehow have this right to be free from offence and that this magical right trumps our first amendment rights is crazy.
Time to get back to first principles.

Iblis on March 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM

So brave. You Christian’s are so persecuted! It must be so hard being such a minority in this country.

beverlyfreaks on March 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Assuming the activist judge chooses to hold her in contempt and jail her, what would you call it, other than persecution?? Care to answer that one, loudmouth??

bimmcorp on March 28, 2014 at 10:46 AM

After any referral to Christianity in general and Jesus Christ, in particular have been ordered removed from the public square and Christians have been forced behind closed doors, what then? Who’s next? Anyone who believes ‘Climate Change’ is not anthropogenic? Anyone who states, openly, that the practice of homosexuality or pederasty are sinful and against God’s tenets? When will the ‘famously tolerant’ practice what they preach? When all those who live by God’s tolerance have been eliminated?

vnvet on March 28, 2014 at 10:46 AM

So brave. You Christian’s are so persecuted! It must be so hard being such a minority in this country.

beverlyfreaks on March 28, 2014 at 10:34 AM

if you don’t see the issue with someone being silenced by force of law than you are an idiot.
Lets pass a law saying the person beverlyfreaks cannot offer an opinion on nay internet forum dealing with politics.
still ok with it?
nah you would freak out.

dmacleo on March 28, 2014 at 10:46 AM

The sad thing is that if one of the commissioners dropped their laptop on their foot, and exclaimed, “Jesus Christ!”, it wouldn’t be a problem.

Ward Cleaver on March 28, 2014 at 10:47 AM

Amazing how someone who doesn’t care about Jesus, how the name Jesus offends those who don’t care.

I can imagine this attorney saying to her gardener…”Can I just call you Bob and not Jesus?”

If I was a humanist, I would just point out how foolish someone is for talking to something that doesn’t exist. Not tell them not to talk about something that I don’t understand or care about.

Have any of those people ever seen “fracking”? Have any of them ever seen actual cancer cells? Ever see, touch, feel, mental disorder?

Than the board can’t talk about any of those things…It’s just foolish, and a wise judge would have told them to work it out and leave it out of the court.

right2bright on March 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

This whole idea that we’ve somehow have this right to be free from offence and that this magical right trumps our first amendment rights is crazy.
Time to get back to first principles.

Iblis on March 28, 2014 at 10:45 AM

You’ve offended me… you should have put a ‘trigger warning’ before your post! =P

nullrouted on March 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Good for her. Jesus is Lord. Don’t like it? Too bad.

Whitey Ford on March 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM

.
There is a legitimate point to be made, about some Christian believers who conduct “evangelical activities” out of spite, as opposed to genuinely trying to reach-out to others, out of love (Westboro Baptist Church?).

Some years ago, you probably could have included me in that category.
.
But I (and I suspect yourself, as well) don’t believe that’s what Carroll County commissioner Robin Frazier was trying to do.

listens2glenn on March 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

It’s just foolish, and a wise judge would have told them to work it out and leave it out of the court.

right2bright on March 28, 2014 at 10:48 AM

Clearly, we are not dealing with a ‘wise judge’ here…

bimmcorp on March 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Going beyond what she and others are permitted to do I think that this is a good illustration for why Christianity is so resented in our public lives by so many. People who are not Christians just don’t want to be preached to. Throughout my lifetime and well before the majority has subjected all of us to their religious inclinations.

It is no wonder that a strong backlash has developed to keep religion in its place. While in this instance no laws were violated, IMHO, such pronouncements do motivate people to push back to ensure that the boundaries are defined and not exceeded.

MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

There is no doubt that Frazier’s act is deliberately provocative, and one can debate whether that’s an effective witness to faith or not in terms of charity and goodwill.

Christians in the United States need to be more provocative, in my view. In Canada and Europe, pastors are arrested for violating ‘hate speech’ laws and thrown in jail for preaching against homosexuality, and that’s a kiss by an angel compared to what Christians are enduring in places like China and most countries of the Middle East.

In an oppressive, unjust, authoritarian society, if you aren’t getting in trouble with the authorities then you’re not doing it right. If your name doesn’t appear on the enemies list of a government petty and tyrannical enough to keep an enemies list, then you’re not trying hard enough.

troyriser_gopftw on March 28, 2014 at 10:51 AM

I suspect the reaction here would be somewhat different if you replaced “Jesus” with “Allah.”

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM

See, you follow the tradition of “Psychic Liberal” with “Psychic Atheist”. And then try to play the Alinskyan hypocrite card, when you have no idea how many people would have no objections to a devout Muslim referencing his God.

It becomes embarrassing (mostly for him) if it starts to be a ran about “infidels” and even worse for his re-election the further he goes. But just thanking Allah?

Why would the particular reaction be from particular individuals make any difference, by the way? Again, this is Psychic Liberal + Alinsky. Not because it makes any valid point.

Axeman on March 28, 2014 at 10:52 AM

I am talking civility and not “letter of the law”. We all say things from time to time that offend others and when that happens to me I look first; at intent of the speaker and second; the words chosen by the speaker. I see no ill intent or provocation to offend from the speaker and am fine with her mentioning Jesus Christ. I do this on a case by case basis and am only directly addressing her use of Jesus Christ in this specific incident.

HonestLib on March 28, 2014 at 10:54 AM

MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Your ignorance could fill a library.

Christianity is primarily attacked by leftists because they see it as a threat to their goals.

NotCoach on March 28, 2014 at 10:54 AM

Christians in the United States need to be more provocative, in my view.

Go for it.

Just don’t whine when you get pushback from the rest of the society.

Good Lt on March 28, 2014 at 10:54 AM

…But we are not supposed to concede to keeping our Christianity “to ourselves.”

listens2glenn on March 28, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Yep.

Fenris on March 28, 2014 at 10:55 AM

This is the stuff we concern ourselves with while Putin is on the march…

– Gay rights
– Global warming
– Obamacare wealth redistribution scheme
– Income inequality
– Spying on Americans
– Expanding the welfare state
– Ignoring immigration law
– Unionizing college football athletes
– etc…
– etc…

And we wonder why we have become an international joke???…

PatriotRider on March 28, 2014 at 10:22 AM

Actually, I’d say stopping Spying on Americans, Expanding the welfare state, and Ignoring immigration law are currently much more critical to our national security and overall national interests than stopping Putin at this point. Of the things on your list, those three things are directly undermining our Constitution and/or the rule of law and are causing us to crumble from the inside. I’m not belittling what Russia is doing to its neighbors, and I’m not saying the US shouldn’t do anything. But these three things are clearly more important to our nation right now than Putin. We are an international joke because we cannot express strength “over there” when we are decaying so rapidly “over here.”

yaedon on March 28, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Constitution of Maryland, 1776: “We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…”

Akzed on March 28, 2014 at 10:55 AM

MJBrutus on March 28, 2014 at 10:50 AM

Don’t like the preaching? Don’t listen. I happen to resent having to build foot washing facilities at public airports for the Muslims, but I get called a bigot and a Islamophobe for expressing this view. We have begun catering to Muslims and vilifying and persecuting Christians in this country, and folks like you seem to have no issue with it at all. Why is that, do you suppose??

bimmcorp on March 28, 2014 at 10:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7