A Flood of Thoughts

Photo: noaa.gov

Eleven years ago, yesterday (August 29, 2005), Hurricane Katrina made landfall and started grinding her way towards New Orleans, LA. For weeks afterwards, Americans were inundated with news of the destruction. During the wall-to-wall media coverage, we all became instant experts on hurricane categorization, FEMA, presidential duties, New Orleans mayoral politics, and school bus deployment.

The recent flooding in Louisiana brings back memories of that flood. But the round-the-clock news coverage is AWOL. News has come, if at all, through Facebook shares. The national media has done relatively little to report the story in any comprehensive and informative way. That’s too bad. These are real people and fellow citizens of ours. Their story needs to be told, and we will benefit by knowing it.

Let’s start with the storm itself. It was quite different from Katrina. Eleven years ago, we were dealing with a Category-5 storm. But the recent rain wasn’t a hurricane, in fact, it never even become a cyclone. With little wind, and no eye of the storm, it was called an “inland tropical depression.” It rained hard, for sure. But that’s not unusual weather for Louisiana.

What made this storm so unusual, was how slowly it moved. It is one thing for a storm to lay down 3 inches a rain per hour. It is quite another for storms like these to linger for two full days. Many reporting station in northern Louisiana recorded more than two feet of rain from August 8-11, one as high as 27 inches.

This was bad enough, but the storm still wasn’t done. In moved slightly west and continued through August 11-13. So as the water began receding at one place, more was being dumped nearby. But, Louisiana is no stranger to heavy rains. And, while this was worse than most, it seemed to weather the storm in decent shape.

What many residents forgot was that these torrents of rain from two adjacent regions would competing for drainage in the selfsame rivers and tributaries. When they met, records were shattered. Many of the rivers in and around Baton Rouge crested five and six feet higher than their previous record.

Baton Rouge, August 13, 2:00 a.m.

Anthony, the fussy baby of Joao and Crystal Casaroti had just fallen asleep in his swing. It looked like his young parents would finally be able to get some sleep. It had been a long week. Then the phone rang. A neighbor was calling. He told them that they needed to evacuate, tonight.

They rushed to look out of the front door, not quite believing the urgency of the call. But there they could plainly see that the street was already covered in water, and it was rising fast. Crystal began gathering milk, diapers, and various baby supplies while Joao busied himself by stashing important documents and computer hard-drives in the attic.

Then the doorbell rang and another neighbor was telling them that they needed to leave -- right now. It had only been 20 minutes since the first phone call, but already by the time they drove the car into the street, the water was knee high. A few more minutes and they would have shared the fate of neighbors. When the water got so high that cars couldn’t drive, those left behind escaped the flood by climbing onto rooftops. There they spent the night awaiting rescue.

Casaroti House (Photo: gofundme.com)

That’s how fast it happened. As days of pouring rain flowed together into the major waterways, it simply backed up like a giant storm sewer. Within a few hours, the water in their home, that doubled as a piano studio, was lapping at the keys of their three grand pianos. These along with most of their belongings are a total loss.

Their story is repeated over and over again across the state. In the hardest hit places, 3 out of every 4 homes were destroyed. Early estimates counted 146,000 flooded homes, plus businesses, schools, and infrastructure. Miraculously, only 13 people have been confirmed dead as a result of the floods. Had it not been for their neighbors’ timely warnings, little Anthony could easily have been swallowed up by the silently rising waters before it ever woke his sleeping parents.

Hurricane Katrina had been tracked for days and every citizen of New Orleans had been warned of its Category-5 strength long before it made its devastating landfall. By contrast, the Louisiana flood seemed to come out of nowhere and sneak up in the middle of the night.

It snuck up on us as well. Most of America has been slow to understand the magnitude of this disaster. This is possibly the first full article you have seen about it.

Enter the Cajun Navy.

About 20,000 stranded people were rescued from their homes and their vehicles by police, firefighters, the Coast Guard, and the Louisiana National Guard. On top of that, at least a thousand more were rescued by volunteer boat-owners who responded to the call on social media.

These good citizens were dubbed “the Cajun Navy.” They organized themselves by cell phone and social media. Coordinating with the emergency crews, they not only gathered the stranded, but also delivered supplies, rescued pets, and ferried people to retrieve heirlooms.

At a time when the news cycle daily highlights examples of man’s inhumanity to man, this story warms our hearts. It reminds us that Americans of all colors and all socio-economic backgrounds still care enough to drop what they’re doing and help each other time of need.

At a time when the ineffectiveness of federal agencies and the self-serving corruption of too many government officials fills us with disgust, this story renews our hope. It reminds us that families, community, and the bonds of humanity are the real social safety net. It is not the government that catches us when communities fail, but visa-versa. It is the community that catches us when government fails.

The cleanup from these floods will require staggering amounts of time, sweat, money and material. But already volunteers are converging from near and far to begin the work. They toil side by side with family, friends, and strangers. And while they rebuild structures, they are also building something far more lasting.

The Louisiana floods are like train wreck unfolding. But they are also something more. They are an opportunity to serve together. They are an opportunity to grieve together. They are an opportunity to rebuild together. It is the togetherness which will build far more than buildings.

In a sense, I envy the people of Louisiana. For while they toil to rebuild homes and businesses, they are participating in the far happier project of building friendships and families. That is a grace and a blessing that we should pray for. They are opportunities to never pass up. Because by them, you receive far more than you give.

Public Discourse: Dissent Will Not Be Tolerated: What the Case of a Wyoming Judge Means for All of Us

 When judges are prohibited from speaking publicly about their most deeply held convictions, how long will it be before everyone is?

On Wednesday, August 17, the Wyoming Supreme Court heard a case that has huge implications for each and every one of us.

The case involves Judge Ruth Neely, who has served with distinction for twenty-one years as the municipal judge in Pinedale, Wyoming. Since municipalities have no authority either to issue a license or solemnize a marriage, you would think that she’s unaffected by all the hoopla over same-sex marriage. But you would be mistaken. Because of her beliefs about marriage, the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (CJCE) wants to remove her from her job and disqualify her for service anywhere in the Wyoming judiciary.

Continue reading on Public Discourse.

 

Strict Scrutiny at the Supreme Court

Wyoming Supreme Court Building (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Two weeks ago I wrote about the troubling questions surrounding the case of Pinedale’s Judge, Ruth Neely vs. Wyoming’s Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics. It revolves around her answer to a reporter who sought her views on marriage.

This is really the only fact in the case, and it is admitted by everyone. When Judge Neely was asked whether she would perform a “same-sex marriage,” she answered, “no.” Then offered that she would help the inquirer to find a magistrate who would.

After a year and a half, this case finally came before the Wyoming Supreme Court last Wednesday. I traveled to Cheyenne to hear the oral argument. It was an interesting day.

For starters, the courtroom was filled with observers who had traveled from the four corners of Wyoming. Legislators, lawyers, ministers, teachers, businessmen and women, LGBT activists and former LGBT activists were all present. Evanston was represented (by me), but so was Jackson, Gillette, Sheridan, Casper, Thermopolis, Torrington, and, of course, a contingent from Pinedale. I even met people who came from Colorado and Salt Lake City!

A few minutes before 9:00am, the crowd began, literally, to choose sides. Some sat on the left side with the Commission, others on the right side of the room, behind Judge Neely. When all were seated, over six dozen sat on the side of Judge Neely, a dozen on the other, and an additional dozen undetermined. Veteran observers of the court informed me that such a large crowd is rarely present.

The last time there was this much interest was in the matter of Cindy Hill.

Since the case revolves entirely around a solitary verbal exchange, it would seem a straight-forward case of free speech. After all, the First Amendment prohibits “abridging the freedom of speech.” And the Wyoming Constitution guarantees that “every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects” (Article I, Section 18).

Not only did the Commission have to get around these prohibitions, but there is also a religious dimension. How can you sanction a judge for continuing to affirm – and live by – Scriptural doctrines that are central to Christian claims? The First Amendment guarantees not only free thought, but “free exercise.” More than that, the Wyoming Constitution, with polygamy in plain view, insists that “no person shall be rendered incompetent to hold any office… because of his opinion on any matter of religious belief whatever” (Article 1, Section 18).

The Commission sought to get around both of these obstacles by insisting that Judge Neely’s crime is neither what she believes nor what she said, but “because of what she DID.” And what did she do? According to Pat Dixon, “She expressed her unwillingness to follow the law, and she demonstrated her bias against certain groups.” Notice that both of these “actions” were done by speaking outside of the courtroom, outside of business hours, and not to anybody actually before the court.

This prompted one justice to ask, “so, if she simply hadn’t performed any same sex marriages, that’s not a problem. But when she told the world…?” To which the Commission replied, “That’s right… Judges don’t give speeches. That’s what politicians do.” This exchange caught my attention. I immediately thought of the dozens of graduation speeches and public talks given by Anthony Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas and scores of judges through the years.

Pat Dixon

Pat Dixon, the counsel for the Commission, strove throughout to downplay the constitutional questions. He told the justices, “I’m not a constitutional scholar,” and admitted that he had not actually read some of the cases cited in the Commission’s Brief. Rather than the Constitution, the Commission wanted to focus exclusively on the Code of Judicial Conduct developed not by public law, but by a committee of judges. Judge Neely, by contrast, focused primarily on the U.S. and Wyoming Constitutions. So stark was this contrast, that Justice Fox prefaced one of her questions to the Commission by saying: “I know you don’t want to talk about the Constitution, but WE need to.”

Wow!

As the talk turned to the Constitution, the question centered on whether or not this case should be held to the “Strict Scrutiny Test.” This test is the most stringent standard of judicial review used in U.S. courts. It comes into play only when fundamental constitutional rights are being infringed. Before the government infringes the Bill of Rights, it must prove two things: 1) that there is a “compelling governmental interest,” and, 2) that the law is “narrowly tailored” to accomplish that goal by the “least restrictive means.”

This discussion threatened to undermine the entire case of the Commission. For by admitting that “Strict Scrutiny” applies, they thereby admit that the Commission seeks to infringe a fundamental constitutional right – in this case two rights -- both the Freedom of Speech and the Free exercise of Religion. Thus, when Justice Fox asked directly whether the Commission admitted that “Strict Scrutiny” applied, Pat Dixon was hesitant to give a direct answer. So, she asked him again. He continued to dither, even saying that their Brief was written by several people who disagreed! Finally, one of the other justices interjected, “your Brief says that it does!” Only then did he admit plainly that the Commission thinks that “Strict Scrutiny” applies.

With this admission, the Commission can no longer deny that Judge Neely’s fundamental constitutional rights are being infringed. They have admitted that the burden is on them to prove that a judge cannot speak to an ISSUE without “manifesting bias or prejudice” toward and INDIVIDUAL. They must prove that a judge cannot exercise her religion while still remaining fair and impartial towards those of a different faith. Then, they must prove that the judge has not only been compromised in one particular case from which she could recuse herself, but that she is entirely incompetent to serve on the bench at all.

If they manage to prove all those things, it seems that they would prove too much. For then, L.D.S., Christian, Muslim, and Jewish judges must either cease practicing their faith, or be removed from the bench. At the very least, they should be forbidden from speaking their minds. If, on the other hand, the Commission fails to pass the test of “Strict Scrutiny,” the Court would do well to reject the entire argument of the Commission.

Judges are normal people like you and me. They think and speak, believe and act on a variety of issues while being quite capable of remaining impartial and fair even when dealing with those with competing ideas. The integrity of the Judiciary has always depended upon their ability to do this. It does not depend upon thought-police to expel every judge who will not walk in lock-step with the latest group-think. Such is the bedrock of a free and tolerant society.

Further Reading:
Public Discourse: Dissent Will Not Be Tolerated: What The Case Of A Wyoming Judge Means For All Of Us

Brody’s Story, Our Story

Photo: LCMS Communications

Some of the best things in life are right under our noses. True to form, one of these most life-affirming stories is happening right here in Southwest Wyoming. When Kemmerer’s Sabrina Montgomery appeared on the Mother’s Day episode of the Today Show (5/13/15), people all over America learned the story of Brody. Let me tell it to you.

The story began at Christmas, 2011. Nobody knew it yet, but the special gift named Brody had already come into the world. As the Mongomery's pastor, I knew of it early on. He did not show his face for the first time until August, the following year. As with all birthdays, his was both exhilarating and emotional. Like all kids, he was cute and cuddly. But he was also something more. 

Nobody could quite place their finger on it. Were his eyes like his mother’s? We weren’t quite sure.

It wasn’t until his 4-month checkup that the Doctor began to see enough signs to say it: Down syndrome. Downs is a diagnosis, not a disease. It is a special genetic arrangement found in about 1 out of 700 children born today. It used to be more common. But just before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, doctors developed a prenatal test for Down syndrome. Since then, about 90% of the people conceived with this condition never make it to birth.

It’s these prevailing and irrational attitudes that made the diagnosis feel like a punch in the gut. With no preparation, no time to adjust, no gradual dawning, the hopes and visions for the future were changed in the blink of an eye. They weren’t changed for the worse. They were just changed. But clarity on that point didn’t come immediately.

Clarity on this point was one of the first gifts that Brody brought to his family and his entire community. Let’s face it. We are conditioned to fear Down syndrome, and treat it like a disease. But Brody has caused all of us who love him to question our assumptions. Who says it’s a ‘disorder’? Different? Yes. Slower to learn some things? Yes. But he is perfectly ordered. Nothing needs to be “fixed.” His body, mind and spirit are a masterpiece in their own right.

Brody is exactly as he is supposed to be. He is not just ‘disabled,’ He is also ‘enabled.’ His cognitive and motor slowness in comparison to his peers only serves to highlight our own slowness to love and laugh. As his father put it, “He has never met a stranger.” If I were given a choice between his physical handicaps and my emotional handicaps, there’s a very real possibility I would trade my abilities for his.

As we learned these lessons, there was still more to come. Soon after the discovery of his Downs, doctors found a life-threatening heart condition. Early optimism about repairing it, gave way to the sad news from the best doctors at Children’s Primary that there is, “nothing we can do.” 

We were told that the strains on his heart would grow more severe until it simply couldn’t keep up with the body’s needs and he would die. He would probably make it to his second birthday. But almost certainly would not live past five. This diagnosis, in itself, was like a death. But in that death we found new life.

While his parents looked for treatments to heal the heart, days were filled with doctors, diagnostics, and decisions. But once every option was cleared from the table, peace replaced anxieties. And in that peace, we all found a new purpose. 

Brody’s life, while short, was given as our temporary gift. He was to be cherished and enjoyed, not fixed, not mourned, not desperately clung to, just enjoyed. Here was his second great gift to us. Because while we learned this lesson about Brody, we immediately saw that it was true of every other person in our lives. 

None of the people in your life are permanent fixtures. Each comes with an expiration date. While we can and should care for them as much as resources allow, we are never in control. Our Maker, alone, has the power over life and death. We are only given to love those He has given.

Once this lesson was learned, Brody surprised us again. Through an unlikely series of connections, a doctor in Boston asked to have a second look at Brody’s heart. This doctor, on the cutting edge of open heart surgery, then announced, we can do something for him after all!

The surgery lasted four and a half hours. And the scar runs from his neck to his abdomen. But his heart is no longer his greatest handicap, but his strongest asset. He pinked up and started growing, learning, and developing like he never had before.

But then, Brody’s story took a new turn. On the very same day that Brody’s post-op exam found him in perfect health, his mother, in another room at the same hospital was diagnosed with breast cancer – stage 3a.

Now the tables were turned. Only months ago, Brody was likely to die before his mother. Now, his mother was likely to die before him. And so, once again began the painful and uncertain task of battling death. Radical surgery, radiation, and chemo-therapy each played their part.

Then, while she was beginning the most intensive and extensive course of chemo-therapy for her cancer, Brody’s story took yet another turn. A routine cold turned nastier than usual. The initial signs of R.S.V. were overlooked. By the time they were noticed, a life-flight from Gillette to Children’s Primary in Salt Lake City was his only hope. 

On the way, he was placed into a coma and hooked up to machines which would be his lungs for the next three weeks. It was a piteous sight to see this little boy splayed out on bed and hooked up to a dozen or so medications and numerous beeping monitors. 

As his lungs filled with fluid and complications mounted upon complication, hope faded. His heart stopped for several minutes while an army of physicians bustled about to get it restarted. Children in nearby rooms were succumbing to the same virus that was attacking his little body. It looked grim.

But what should we do in the face of life? Give up? Pull the plug? Stop fighting? To do this would be to stop reading the book before the story ends. We learn at such moments that we are not the authors of our stories. If we are reading the last chapter, we will never know it until the final page. And often, what we think is the last chapter is only the beginning. 

Who can say? Our lives lie in the hands of Another. This much is certain. Here is the undeniable reality that brings all of us human beings to the same place: You are not the author of your story. It is being written by Another. Some call the author Fate or Chance, others call it Life, most simply call Him God. But all acknowledge that someone else is in the driver’s seat.

Brody’s parents knew this too. They knew, as the doctors did, that no matter how advanced the medical care, no matter how hard the doctors and nurses fought for his life, no matter now strong or weak his body was, no matter how overwhelming the odds, whether he lived or died would totally depend upon the Author of Life. And because of their Christian faith, they were confident that Brody’s Author would write a beautiful story. 

As it turns out, Brody walked out of the hospital and his mother was pronounced cancer free. After a remarkable recovery, he is as healthy as any other 4-year-old. That’s when his story first went national on the Today Show in 2015. Recently, it just went national again. This time, it is being shared around the internet under the hashtag #eyesoflife. You can see photos and more of the story at eyesoflife.org.

As he celebrates his fourth birthday, we still don’t know whether we are in the opening chapters or the last ones. But, then, we don’t know that about our own lives either. We only know that our story is being written by another. Your life too, no less than Brody’s life, is a beautiful and exciting story. I hope that the lessons we learned from Brody can help you read your own story in a new light.


Further Resources:
Today Show, (5/15/13): Amazing Mom...
Eyes of Life.org: Sabrina

Judge’s Case Raises Troubling Questions

Next Wednesday (August 17) the Wyoming Supreme Court will be hearing a case which has huge implications for each and every one of us.

The case involves Judge Ruth Neely who has served with distinction for 21 years as the municipal judge in Pinedale, Wyoming. Since municipalities have no authority either to issue a license or solemnize a marriage, you would think that she’s unaffected by all the hoopla over same-sex marriage. 

But you would be mistaken. In a chillingly reasoned opinion, the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics (CJCE) wants to remove her from her job and disqualify her for service anywhere in the Wyoming judiciary.

The story began on a cold Saturday morning in December, 2014. Shortly after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declared Wyoming marriage statutes unconstitutional, a reporter from the Sublette Examiner called Mrs. Neely to ask if she was “excited” to perform same-sex marriage.

It was only because she had accepted a second, part-time job as Circuit Court Magistrate, that this question had any relevance at all. In that unpaid position, she was authorized, but not obligated, to solemnize marriages. 

She gave a perfectly reasonable reply. She said that if she were ever asked (she never has been) she would help the couple find someone to do the job. However, she would “not be able to do” it herself.

Based on this solitary exchange, about a hypothetical question, the CJCE has been waging what they call a “holy war” against her for more than a year. They are not content to send her a letter clarifying what she should have done, nor even a letter of reprimand. Instead, they are levelling the greatest possible punishment allowable by law.

Many legal points have been made in her defense. The most thorough and factual would be the two briefs that her lawyers filed before the Supreme Court on April 29 and July 8, 2016. You can find them at www.courts.state.wy.us/ (case #J-16-0001). I’m not going to rehash them here. What I do want to explore here, are a few implications of the CJCE arguments.

One central allegation against Judge Neely is the charge of bias. The CJCE claims that merely by publicly affirming the Biblical teaching on homosexual acts, she immediately and irrevocably made it impossible to judge fairly or impartially in any matter whatsoever. 

They make much of a private letter in which she discussed a number of Biblically named sins. The CJCE was so shocked that she would agree with the Bible that her religion (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) was called “repugnant” in open court.

Let’s think about this for a minute. Note, first, that the idea of “sin” is not a legal category. It is a theological category. Sins are against God. Crimes are against the government. For centuries America has known that something may be a sin without being illegal. Drunkenness, adultery, greed and blasphemy immediately come to mind. This is the very essence of the church/state distinction.

Every judge in America has been perfectly capable of applying the law equitably and fairly to people who engage in all kinds of sins without confusing sins with illegal activity. But now the CJCE wants Wyoming to believe that one sin, and one sin only, can no longer be called “sin” without threatening the entire judicial system.

If this reasoning is true, then it should apply to every judge who thinks something is a sin which the government has declared legal. Do you believe that drunkenness is a sin? Well, since there’s no law against it, you’re fired! You think that adultery is a sin? You cannot be a judge anywhere in Wyoming. Who will be left to sit on the bench? Only those who have no moral compass beyond the letter of the law.

A second major point that the CJCE makes is that Judge Neely, “by announcing her position against marriage equality,” openly spoke against the law of the land. Here is another curious position.

Does the CJCE really mean to say that any public opposition to any law should immediately disqualify a judge from office? The Commission might want to think that one through a bit more. 

The fact of the matter is that prior to October 6, 2014, same-sex marriage was against the law of the land. If the Commission is right, any and every judge who spoke in favor of same-sex marriage prior to then, should have been immediately removed from the bench. 

This would be rather awkward since Wendy Soto, even as the Executive Director of the CJCE, was on the board of Wyoming Equality and agitating for same-sex marriage long before it was legal. More than awkward, the implications of this would be staggering.

Should we drive all pro-life judges from the bench because of Roe v. Wade? Should we remove all judges who speak in favor of gun control because of the 2nd Amendment? While NARAL might favor the first, and the NRA, the second, nobody who understands the importance of free speech could seriously want either.

Ned Donovan - LinkedIn

And this brings up a third point that we should consider carefully. The CJCE goes to great lengths to argue that Judge Neely’s remarks to Ned Donovan were a “public statement.” Presumably, she would not be in trouble if she had said the exact same words in private.

But what exactly constitutes “public speech?” Certainly a judge’s remarks from the bench are official and public. Is a personal conversation with a reporter also public? If he had been seeking to protect his sources, nobody would ever know her name. But Ned Donovan was not looking for a story. He was looking to sack a judge.

The CJCE argues that since he identified himself as a reporter and was writing a story, Judge Neely should have known that this was public speech. What does this position do to the news industry’s right to protect its sources? If the media value their ability to get honest answers, they might want to speak out on this point.

Is the CJCE arguing that Judge Neely has the right to free speech, only as long as not too many people hear it. Does she have freedom of speech but not freedom of the press? This got me thinking. If she had said these things in a Sunday School classroom, would she still be charged with judicial misconduct? What about if she had said them in a restaurant while Ned Donavan was sitting in an adjacent booth? 

What about if she had written these remarks down before same-sex marriage became legal and Mr. Donavan published them afterwards? Should she then be hauled before the Commission and asked to publicly recant? The Spanish Inquisition was a really bad idea. Let’s not try it again.

This may all seem far-fetched, but it is not. In Atlanta Chief Kelvin Cochrane was fired for a self-published booklet that he wrote for his men’s Bible Study. Is Wyoming going to adopt Atlanta’s values?

If all of this sounds like the abridgment of Judge Neely’s free speech, it is. But never fear. The CJCE confidently asserts that this is permissible under the United States Constitution because it applies only to judges. Judges are prohibited from speaking publicly about their deepest held convictions, but no one else. How comforting!

This raises two more questions: First, if judges are not permitted to speak publicly about marriage (unless they are parroting the orthodoxy of the CJCE) what other topics will become taboo in the months and years to come? Nobody is saying yet. But I am sure we will be told when they are good and ready. 

Second, while this draconian abridgment of free speech is limited to judges today, by what legal theory does the CJCE exempt county clerks, teachers, public health workers or any other employee of the State of Wyoming? 

Their absolute silence on this point speaks volumes.

On August 17 the Wyoming Supreme Court is going to decide whether to keep Judge Neely on the bench or remove her -- and everyone who shares her convictions -- from our state’s judiciary. Let’s hope that they protect our freedoms to think, speak and act. If they don’t, it will not be the end of the matter. It will only open the flood gates to a million more questions -- and a lot less freedom.