Eileen Smith with In The Pink is fun to read

As I combed through Eileen Smith's blog, I realized a couple of things. She is witty. She critical. She's a cynic. Her posts drip with sarcasm. Her audience is anyone who is generally left leaning and likes to poke a bit of fun at others.

As a left leaning sarcasm dispenser, I love it. Kinda.

In her latest post, entitled We’ve Got Spirit! The Holy Spirit!, Eileen talks about the recent case concerning a certain group of Kountze ISD cheerleaders. For those not in the know, a group of cheerleaders in an East Texas town have gained temporary fame due to their insistence of using bible quotes on their football banners. Once the Kountze ISD told them that they could no longer do this, 15 families filed a lawsuit against the district for violating their freedoms of religion and speech. Thankfully, and Eileen points out, "a state judge stepped in and issued a temporary restraining order against the ban so now the pep rallies can double as prayer vigils and exorcisms." This same judge has also set the trial date to begin in late June of 2013. Strangely this coincides with the end of the school year of these cheerleaders. It's almost as if he is putting this injunction into place just long enough to allow these cheerleaders to do as they please for the rest of the school year.

Almost.

While I do love Eileen's style, and her wit is sharp, I feel as if she falls short of the kill. Her posts are generally short and well written, they don't quite run the whole race. For example, she doesn't directly mention anything about how in the United States, while it is a hot button topic, the general consensus is that it is best to keep religion out of school for many reasons. I wont go into all of the reasons I agree with this. Others have done much more eloquently than I ever will, but I feel that it should at least be mentioned that outside of deeply religious communities this behavior is generally not permitted.

Eileen also fails to mention the part about the judge allowing the cheerleaders to continue proselytizing by setting the case for almost exactly 2 weeks after the Kountze High School Graduation. To me, this is an obvious slap in the face to anyone who agrees with the actions of KISD or  disagrees with the Christian faith. It is blatant, and effectively nullifies the KISD decision to remain religiously neutral.

I also find it strange that there is no mention of the 2011 case with Hillaire Soignet of Sislbee, Texas. (They may seem like completely unrelated cases, but hear me out.) Again, not getting into the details, the court ruled in this case that Hillaire's appeal be thrown out because she "had no right to refuse to applaud her attacker because as a cheerleader in uniform, she was an agent of the school." So, in effect, while in uniform, a cheerleader is an agent of the school. KISD stated that they don't want their agents/cheerleaders to promote their religion while in uniform. And yet, despite the Hillaire Soignet case ruling, a Texas judge is stepping it and saying that it's OK, this time. Because religion. Oh, and the best part? Kountze and Sislbee are less than 10 miles from each other.

So, the bottom line, in my opinion, is that while Eileen Smith is a wonderfully entertaining read, she stops short of the intelligent kill, and remains in the land of fun snark.

I'm going to have to agree with Sean Jordan...

I would like to share with everyone an article written for the Houston Chronicle that I found very interesting. The title of the article is "Transparency is the key to democratic system." I would like anyone reading this to absorb the title for just a second. The first thing that comes to my mind is a big resounding "duh." Followed by a somewhat sad, half resigned: "Why does it not surprise me that this is something that actually has to be said or written about?"

But, I could be jaded.

This article is about a law that exists in all 50 states. One of the core provisions of this law is that all meetings between elected or public officials must be prohibited from being closed from the public with matters that concern their elected office. In other words, if you are an elected official, you can't hide the details or decisions of your job from the people that elected you. ...And some Texan politicians are trying to get that overturned as a violation of the First Amendment. Go Texas!

This article by Sean Jordan is very well written. He is articulate and to the point, but not dry. His target audience is everybody. Everybody should be aware of what their elected officials are doing. Everybody should be aware that some of their elected officials may be attempting to take this right away from the public. As an Texan  American, I feel that knowing what my leaders are up to is my right. I think that most people will agree with Mr Jordan.

As I was finishing up the article, I wondered about Sean's credibility. Sure, he has a point. Yep, I agree with it. But does he actually know what he's talking about? Well, according to a blurb after the conclusion of the article, it would seem that he has first hand experience with this:

"Jordan is an attorney in the Austin office of Sutherland Asbill and Brennan. As former principal deputy solicitor general, he served as the lead lawyer representing the state of Texas defending the Texas Open Meetings Act in the Asgeirsson case."

Jordan's assertion is that the public has a right to know what business elected official are conducting. Furthermore, their speech is not being limited by any provision of the Open Meetings Act, and they are free, if not encouraged, to say anything they want. Their speech is not restricted; however, they must disclose said free speech when it concerns official business. This was later confirmed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when the appeal was rejected.

While everybody should be aware of their First Amendment rights, let's take a second to look at the actual text.

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.

Now, lets compare this to the Texas Open Meetings Act (credit to www.tml.org):


Under the Texas Open Meetings Act (the Act), the general rule is that every regular, special, or 
called meeting of a governmental body, including a city council and most boards and commissions 
(depending on membership and authority), must be open to the public and comply with all the 
requirements of the Act... A governmental body must post an agenda that includes the date, hour, place, and subject of each meeting.   The agenda must be posted at city hall in a place readily accessible to the public at all times for at least 72 hours before the meeting. 

As with any governmental document, obviously there is much, much more to the act, but one gets the general idea from this overview of the meaning of the act. Clearly Jordan and the Appeals Court are in the right. There is nothing conflicting between the act and the First Amendment. The act does not prohibit any speech. It only requires that the speech be made known to the public.

To sum things up: I will be keeping my eye out for Jordan, as he seems to have a good grasp of what is going on.