On March 2, 2009, the School Board of Santa Rosa County, Florida met “to address a lawsuit against the board regarding religious activities within the school district.” Mr. David Marsey, Sniffen Law Firm, “emphasized that the district is not giving up anything; we will simply be complying with the law.”

I have some questions I’ll be asking Mr. Marsey hopefully tomorrow.

#1. Whom do you consider “the district?”

#2. With which law are you complying?

#3. Are not the faculty indeed giving up their 1st Amendment rights in the US Constitution and religious freedom rights in Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution if the consent decree prohibits “staff from promotion or participating in prayer with students.”

How many Floridians are familiar with the following from our state constitution?

    Article I
    Declaration of Rights
    Section 3. Religious freedom.
    –There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or PROHIBITING OR PENALIZING the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom shall not justify practices inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution. (Emphasis added)

And for that matter, what do we do if the ACLU comes after our state constitution’s preamble?

    We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

If two high school students can be offended by school prayer and sue the school board under the provisions of US Code: Title 42, Subchapter I, 1983, why cannot the rest of the students and faculty do the same for being deprived of their individual rights? The law reads:

    Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Does not the consent order deprive “school officials” the rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the Constitution? And if this consent order does indeed violate the rights of the school officials, can they not bring suit against the school board?

This is my clarion call to the Body of Christ here in Santa Rosa and adjacent counties who believe their religious freedom is being trampled upon.

We must mobilize, get educated on the issues, and…AND…dig deep into our wallets to help pay the legal fees that will come with this fight.

If we do nothing, then we will be guilty of giving up everything.

    “When we consider what it will cost others if we obey the call of Jesus, we tell God He does not know. Shut out every other consideration and keep yourself before God for this one thing only—My Utmost for His Highest. I am determined to be absolutely and entirely for Him and for Him alone.”—Oswald Chambers

Copyright © 2009 www.saltandlightblog.com


, , , , , , , , , , , ,