From the moment that I learned the story of Judge Ruth Neely from Pinedale (which I have written about on numerous occasions) I have been talking to my elected representatives and fellow citizens from both sides of the issue trying to address the outrageous treatment that this gentle civil servant has received at the hands of the Wyoming State Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics.
Focus-group-tested talking points claim that HB 135 came from out-of-state interests. They are false. I know. I was working with my elected representatives and with interested people all across the state for months before the American Civil Liberties Union came back to Wyoming (After absence, ACLU brings policy director to Wyoming, Laura Hancock, Dec. 5, 2016).
The talking points are not only fake, they are disrespectful and dismissive of hundreds of thousands of Wyoming Citizens who care about bringing balance back to a very unconstitutional view of religious liberty.
I appreciate Senator Paul Barnard who did not dismiss my concerns. Anybody who is willing to honestly look at the facts can easily see that something fundamentally new is happening to our First Amendment protections.
Once upon a time, the First Amendment meant that all citizens could speak freely and be judged by the court of public opinion. Now, there are censorships imposed through governments at every level which filter those words and acts of expression which can be debated in public, and those which cannot.
I can still vividly remember, as a kid living in the Chicago area, when the ACLU defended the rights of Nazis to goose-step through the streets of Skokie, Illinois. Everybody knew that this was a repugnant display, intended to hurt the thousands of holocaust survivors who lived there. Even as a kid, I was outraged.
But the ACLU defended a principle: that the First Amendment applied to all speech. They understood that false and evil speech will not prevail. And they understood that once you grant government the power to censor one person’s speech, everybody’s speech is in the crosshairs.
That was then, this is now.
The ACLU-WY no longer believes this. In a recent press release from their two-month old website (https://www.aclu-wy.org/en/news/government-discrimination-act-overview-hb-135), they complain about two aspects of HB 135. First they object that it would prevent the government from punishing, fining, firing, and canceling the contracts of people who don’t get in line with the new orthodoxy. Second, they complain that too many people would be protected.
The ACLU says, “This bill (HB 135) opens the door to taxpayer-funded discrimination…” Excuse me, but I think we already have that. After all, wasn’t it Pat Dixon, the attorney prosecuting Judge Neely, who declared in court that the state of Wyoming spent more than $40,000 on a “holy war” (his words) against Judge Neely. I, for one, don’t think the government should be using taxpayer dollars to fight holy wars.
What this bill was actually seeking is clear: “the government of this state shall NOT take any discriminatory action” (HB 135). When I wrote to the ACLU, pointing this out, I received the following reply: “We defend religious liberty, and don’t think the government should be discriminating against anyone.”
O.K. Let’s take that at face value. Let’s look for the actual cases where the ACLU defended religious liberty. When Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochrane was fired by the city of Atlanta because of a book on marriage that he had written for his church’s Bible study, where was the ACLU? When Sweet Cakes by Melissa, Arlene’s Flowers, Elane Photography, Hands on Originals, and numerous other artists asked for their First Amendment right to decline what they would say with their artistic expression and what they could not, where was the ALCU?
In every case, the ACLU stood against their claims. So also in Wyoming, when a Wyoming judge answered a reporter’s question by stating a view which was perfectly in line with every Wyoming statute and both the Wyoming and U.S. Constitutions, the ACLU wants her fired from every state position -- related to marriage or not! That is the ACLU’s new definition of “We defend religious liberty.”
I am writing these words from a hotel near Washington, D.C., where I have come to participate in the 44th annual March for Life on the National Mall. It’s too soon for a full count, but I will not be surprised if today’s March surpassed the previous record of 630,000 people set in 2013.
Fathom that, Wyoming! More than the entire population of the State of Wyoming gathered at their own personal expense to walk from the Washington Monument, alongside the capitol dome, and up to the Supreme Court Building. It is the longest running, and consistently largest civil rights march in the entire world -- ever.
And not one of the people walking will gain a single thing for themselves. They march on behalf of people they have never met, and never will meet. This is a protest in the very best sense of the word. Rather than protesting for our own benefit, more than half a million people come together to speak for others who cannot speak for themselves.
And that brings me back to the legislative process. It is time for this country and this state to follow the example of these marchers, along with those who marched in Cheyenne on Saturday, and people like them in every walk of life. Namely, it is time to take up a cause that is not your own.
I say this first, and foremost to myself. From the governor on down, the people of Wyoming can lay aside personal and party agendas and look to secure the rights of someone other than yourself.
As long as we are each grabbing for our own rights, nobody’s will be secure. And as long as we see only what belongs to me, we cannot see what belongs to another. Fundamental human rights are not a zero sum game. We will never secure rights for ourselves by taking them from someone else.
The sponsors of HB 135 have said it well in their press release from January 26: “Equality and the protection of religious freedoms are not mutually exclusive… We must find a balance among our laws, ensuring both our First Amendment right to practice and live our faith each day while practicing tolerance and respect for the rights of our fellow man.”
That is my pledge to every single one of my fellow citizens. Will you join me?
Further Reading:
Rock Springs Rocket-Miner: Free Speech Should Remain Free
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePastor Lange has many good points in this article. We must protect everyone's rights and not just the rights of a few. One of the most important rights is contained in the first amendment which has been largely misquoted. The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Nowhere does it mention a separation of church and state and the free exercise thereof has been abused by the agenda of minority groups. This was one of the fundamental reasons for the founding of this country which is why this is protected in the first amendment.
ReplyDelete