But, quite predictably, teachers' unions and leftist advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the inaptly named People for the American Way, filed suit to prevent implementation of the expanded program. That litigation led to a trial court striking down the expansion of the program, and to appeals, first to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals (which agreed with the trial court decision striking down the program expansion) and then to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

This week past, the Wisconsin high court overturned the decisions of the lower courts and reinstated the expanded program.  As a consequence, as students and parents prepare for the 1998-99 school year, they will again have the opportunity to choose among the best of Milwaukee's entire selection of public and private and religious schools.  Hailed by fans of religious freedom, the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court has its detractors.  Leading with their lips, for example, were spokespuppets for the ACLU and for People for the American Way.

Carole Shields, with People For the American Way, stated:

"This disastrous decision opens the way for millions of dollars of everyone's taxes to be misused to promote someone else's religion.  Separation of church and state is as American as apple pie - and the Wisconsin Supreme Court has just baked a worm into that pie.  This ruling, which gives the green light to a plan to misroute tax dollars into religious institutions, puts the Milwaukee schools plan on a direct collision course with the U.S. Constitution.  It runs counter to everything that the First Amendment stands for and we are confident that this ruling is not only improper and unwise, it is also unconstitutional and would not survive a test in the U.S. Supreme Court."

Christopher Ahmuty, with the Wisconsin Civil Liberties Union, barked

"[T]he Wisconsin court's decision is wrong, [i]t flies in the face of the clear meaning of our state and federal Constitutions."

Steven Shapiro, of the American Civil Liberties Union, chirped,

"Under the theory of this case, Wisconsin is now free to fund parochial school education on the same basis that it funds public school education.  That decision can only be upheld if 50 years of Supreme Court law and the Establishment Clause is reversed."

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, got the better of the argument over these nay-sayers. The Wisconsin Court's grasp of two important considerations, legal and practical, gives its decision the sort of solidity and confirmability that leads this commentator to doubt that review in the Supreme Court of the United States would change the outcome.

First, the Wisconsin Court simply relied on the trend of recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding religion and the Constitution.  Fifteen years ago, the Nation's high court upheld a state statute granting tax deductions for the school-related expenses for parents of students in public, private and religious schools. (Mueller v. Allen).  Ten years ago, the Supreme Court threw off challenges to a federal program of funding for abstinence education raised by groups that worried that groups eligible to receive and use such funds included many that propounded the value of abstinence on the grounds of religious considerations.  (Bowen v. Kendrick).  And, just five years ago, the Supreme Court found no constitutional difficulty in compelling a school district to pay the expenses of a deaf interpreter for a student attending a parochial school.  (Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District).  At the same time, the Court rebuffed a New York school district's efforts to censor religious programs from its program of evening rentals of school facilities. (Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District).  Then, three years ago, the Court chastised Thomas Jefferson's university, the University of Virginia, for denying funding to an evangelical student group for its campus publication on a basis equal to the funding given to other student groups, including Jewish and Muslim student groups. (Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia). Finally, in 1997, the Court directly overruled its own prior decision in a case involving federal funding of remedial instruction, and found no constitutional violation in a program that sends public school remedial teachers of math and reading into religious schools.  (New York v. Felton).

Standing in the shadow of these decisions, the Wisconsin Court comfortably could predict that its reliance on a principle of law that runs through each of the foregoing decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court would stand its resolution of the voucher question in good stead.  That principle is one of "benevolent neutrality."  In other words, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that, where a government agency makes a program of benefits or incentives or funding generally available to some group, and where it does not condition receipt of benefits on adherence to, or rejection of, any religion, then there is no violation of the Establishment Clause if some benefits, incentives or funds flow to religious recipients.

These U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and the principle of decision that they share, then illuminate the practical consideration that led the Wisconsin Supreme Court to its decision. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court noted, when a community funds the construction or maintenance of a highway, it is very likely that among those who benefit from the investment will be those attending churches, synagogues or other places of religious worship or instruction.  The State does not compel those who use public roads to attend religious services by its act of construction or maintenance.  And no constitutional violation can be found in the fact that some users of roads will be religious or do things religious.  In the same vein, the Wisconsin Court noted, if the State makes schooling vouchers available to parents, who are simply required to select the eligible school of their choice as the place to send their children, there is no Establishment of Religion that results from the decision of some parents to choose parochial or other religious school as the places for their children to learn.

Of course, there is a sense in which nattering nabobs such as Steven Shapiro at the American Civil Liberties Union are quite correct:  the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court represents a sea change in lower court applications of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.  Too frequently, the actual effect of good decisions of the United States Supreme Court (rare as hen's teeth as such decisions are) is masked by recalcitrance among lower courts deciding follow-up cases.  The day to look forward to is the one in which sound and sensible decisions need not be pursued through costly appeals to supervising courts but can be obtained in the first instance from trial courts that are not driven by the agendas of  constitutional distortionists of the ilk of the ACLU and People for the American Way.

From which we conclude that the constitutional right to pray in public places really is as plain as the nose on a federal judge's face.

(Washington, DC)--When Reverend Pierre Bynum led a small group of church goers on a tour of the United States Capitol, he never expected to be threatened with arrest, or to become the subject of an article in the National Enquirer, or to need the assistance of a federal court to guarantee his right to pray in our Nation's Capitol building. What Reverend Bynum did not expect, however, became a reality in November 1996, when United States Capitol Police officers threatened to arrest him and his tour group if they engaged in quiet, conversational prayer as part of their tour of the Capitol.

Ultimately, the unexpected onslaught -- led by Capitol police officers against prayer by private citizens in the United States Capitol -- led to litigation in the United States District Court in Washington, DC. When Truthserum's alter ego filed suit on behalf of Reverend Bynum, litigation really was a last resort, coming only after a half year of ultimately unsuccesful negotiation to secure Pastor Bynum's rights.

The pertinent details of the controversy have been laid out in a previous edition of Truthserum's Thoughts, and in testimony by Truthserum's alter ego before the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. Pastor Bynum, his wife and their children sat in a federal courtroom in September 1997 and watched as attorneys argued the question of his right to pray in the Capitol building. Now, nearly three years after Bynum's lawsuit was filed, federal Judge Paul Friedman has issued a final judgment Order and an accompanying Opinion, in which Judge Friedman rules in Pastor Bynum's behalf on his federal lawsuit.

Judge Friedman decided all the factual questions in favor of Pastor Bynum. That result is not surprising because the Government never disputed Pastor Bynum's claim that he had only engaged in quiet, conversational prayer and that Bynum's tour group did not disturb others or obstruct passage in the Capitol. The judge agreed with Pastor Bynum that the Capitol Police Board's enforcement of an unwritten ban on prayer in the Capitol was unreasonable, as well as unconstitutionally vague. Finally, Judge Friedman concluded that Pastor Bynum was entitled to judgment on his claims.

In addition to deciding the factual and legal questions favorably to Pastor Bynum, Judge Friedman also issued a permanent injunction against the United States Capitol Police Board and the United States Capitol Police. In particular, he barred the Government from interfering with Pastor Bynum when he prays as part of his tours of the Capitol building. Also, he ordered the Government not to interfere with "the discrete act of bowing one's head, closing one's eyes, and folding one's hands" as part of prayer activities in the Capitol. Finally, he prohibited the Government from enforcing any restriction on First Amendment-protected conduct in the Capitol building.

Long in coming, the decision protecting Pastor Bynum's right to pray in the Capitol is all the more sweet. Today we thank God for working through the court, when we had no success convincing the Republican controlled House and Senate leadership to instruct their Capitol Police Board to stop interfering with prayer in the Capitol. All in all, Truthserum thinks, an excellent outcome for Pastor Bynum, who, with Truthserum, expressed great thanks and praise to God for the victory.

From Spring 2000.

In which we learn that some values transcend even the rights of a father.

Take this simple test to evaluate your parental fitness:

Your child and your child's mother were trapped in a burning building. While leading your child down a smoke-filled, fire-ringed hallway, your child's mother dies of smoke inhalation. Contacted at work, where you always seem to be, although your productivity is at its nadir, you leisurely saunter to the scene of the conflagration. On arrival, you declare your admiration for smoke, soot, and flame. After explaining that you fully intend to re-enter the towering inferno, would you demand that the paramedics and fireman who have saved your child's life give the child to you so that you can take him with you back into the building?

Are you a fit parent?

Let's work our way backward for a bit. Would you, in a million years, could you ever imagine doing as the figurative parent above does? Yes? Then consider, please, whether that stone that you call a heart is even beating anymore? It has not been that long ago here in the third world country known as the District of Columbia, nestled conveniently between the Peoples' Republic of Maryland and the Peoples' Autonomous Enclave of Alexandria, that a murderous mother was given employment in the social welfare system so that she could be reunited with one of the children that had managed not to be killed by her. Even in the Looking Glass world of left-leaning socialism, it was recognized that something off kilter about such a placement.

Obviously, Truthserum is hunting up a point here. Lest the point be made too obviously or too quickly, let's take a detour of biblical proportions.

One of the great and self-damning sins of the Canaanites before the Children of Israel entered the Land of Promise was the sacrificial murder of children by their parents, by fire, as offerings to Moloch and other demigods. The practice is described, for example, in the Second Book of Kings, chapter 17, verse 31. When the Israelites took the land, they had not been commanded to take with it for themselves such wicked and idolatrous practices. Weakness of character, born of original sin, however, soon gave rise to an imitation of the abhorent practice, even among the Kings of Israel. So, a people who were chosen by God according to His boundless love and brought out of bondage and oppression in the land of Egypt soon became ensnared in the bloodiness of Canaan.

The story is told nowhere better than in chapter 16 of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, in which the word of the Lord spoke this message to the prophet. In verses one through six the Lord brings to remembrance the condition of utter destitution and extremis in which Jerusalem lay, the figurative language of the verses depicts a child dying in its own afterbirth. The Lord, unlike the pitiless others who looked on without aid, rescued Jerusalem from its own decrepitude.

Not only was Jerusalem rescued, it prospered, and in the biblical figure flowered into full womanhood. And, in its beauty, Jerusalem entered into a covenant relationship with the Lord: "I made a promise to you, and signed an unbreakable contract with you, the Lord said, and you became my own." By that promise, Jerusalem was anointed and adorned by the Lord with embroidered work, linens, silks, bracelets, jewels and earrings. And the Lord gave Jerusalem "fine flour, and honey, and oil" to eat.

So great was her beauty that Jerusalem became renowned among the Nations. And here lies the rub. First came fame, and then came the fall. Jerusalem became bewitched by the affections of "the heathen." Quickly, Ezekiel explains, Jerusalem fell into the sins of the Canaan. Not only did Jerusalem turn to making idols and worshiping them, she began to pursue the destruction of her own offspring: "Worse still, you have taken your sons and your daughters, the ones to whom you have given birth for me, and you sacrificed them to be devoured. Can you actually think this evil act, part and parcel of your promiscuous ways and idolatry, is only a small matter, when you have murdered my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire?"

It was for this great sin that Jerusalem would be disassembled, block by bloody block and stone by sacrificial stone. In this figure, God shows the justice that is due to one whose own satisfied need for mercy and deliverance is not over matched by a sense of the obligation to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with God in return. Jerusalem, born a'dying and befouled in her own blood, was trodden down and ruined because in its idolatries and whoredoms she turned a pitiless eye on her children and caused them to be passed through sacrificial fires in service of gods fashioned from stone and wood.

Now, let's turn back to the question of parental fitness.

In explaining the bountiful kindness of our adopted heavenly Father, Jesus explained that no man whose children asked him for food would give, in response, a stone or a snake. So much more, said Jesus, will the Father care for us. In fact, in His transcending love for you and me, the Father prepared a body, that of His beloved Son, so that those who placed there trust in Him would not perish. Here, in the example of our heavenly Father, we see the image of the loving parent: delivering us from evil and forgiving our trespasses.

Of course, Truthserum is thinking about Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban refugee that the Clinton administration seeks to convert into a sacrifice to atheistic, tyrannical communism. Here a child has been in peril, at sea. Swept about by the tides and pressed on by the conditions in the 90 mile gap between waning freedom here and enduring oppression there. Now, the child is delivered alive out of the drowning waters that encrypted his mother and those who pursued freedom at the price of death. In response, after taking his own sweet time in "rushing to his son's side," Juan Gonzalez demands the right to re-enter the burning building of Cuba and to take his newly liberated son with him.

Truthserum is perplexed when he hears men and fathers declare that Elian should be reunited with Juan even though he apparently want to him returned to hell in Cuba. Where are the hearts of compassion, the minds informed of the all too terrible price paid for the liberties of this land? The idea of America as a land of people endowed with freedom was bought with the sacrifice of lives and maintained at the cost of brother warring against brother? How now can it be such hard fought freedom and blood borne liberty does not inform our decision of whether a man who seeks to destroy his own child is the proper person to make life and death decisions for the child? If Jerusalem, of the covenant with the Lord, was destroyed for her pitiless destruction of children, what hope can there be for us when we, with adamantine heart and implacable eye, would throw Elian back into the fire?