• Some students gathered to pray regularly in a “commons” area of the school.
• The principal, feeling it was blocking the way of students and teachers, asked them to move to a classroom to pray.
• They refused.

Of course, both sides are lining up for the show. Here’s an excerpt:

"The case has already been seized upon by national figures and advocacy groups.
The Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based conservative legal advocacy group aligned with The Rev. Jerry Falwell, has thrown its support behind the students, threatening to sue the district over the principal's suspensions. School officials received numerous complaints Thursday from radio listeners in Wisconsin, and a Christian radio station in Florida plans to air a discussion of the incident and issue, and area churches have phoned in solidarity.
On the other side is Heritage High and Evergreen Public Schools, whose administrators say they were just trying to get students to class safely and on time, and evenhandedly apply rules about student gatherings. The school, just north of east Vancouver, is nestled in a working-class neighborhood of modest homes. "

Not all the folks in the religious community in the area are lining up behind the students, however. Here is what Roger D. Miller, principal of Vancouver Christian High School, had to say:

Do I think students should follow policies for how to organize a group? Yes. Do I think sometimes religious groups in schools get unfair treatment? I'd probably agree with that, too. Whether this is one of those cases, I don't know.

My take

To me, it boils down to one basic question…were the students actually blocking reasonable access to areas of the school for other students and teachers? If so, it’s a no-brainer…they have to pray somewhere else. If the reverse is true, then this is clearly a case of an attempt to deny freedom of expression.

this is a test post. 

Here is a great quote I ran across from Theodore Roosevelt...I think it sums up my feelings perfectly on the idea of "supporting the president" that we have often heard from the right...

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

Dennis Preager recently touched off a firestorm by suggesting Keith Ellison should not "be allowed" to put his hand on the Koran and swear allegiance to the constitution as he is sworn into office, without the Bible also making an appearance.

Here is my take:

The Bible is not, officially or unofficially, our national religious text.  We HAVE no national religious text.  If a particular set of religious beliefs, or its trappings, has any kind of favored status within the government or its customs, then the Constitution has been violated. 

It's true most of the founding fathers were faithful Christians.  So what?  Many of them were farmers, does that mean I am compelled to accept farming as the national occupation?  What if a non-Christian faith were to grow to a point that it rivalled Christianity in this country (by the way, I'm a Christian).  Would our nation be threatened by that?  We shouldn't be.  Nothing in the Declaration of Independence or Consitiution precludes having, for instance, a Buddhist majority or a Muslim majority in America, and nothing about our government would have to change.

Tradition, by its very definition, does not have to be followed.  It's true that for the most part the Bible has been used to swear upon.  But I see no reason to treat that as a sacred cow.

As a Conservative Democrat, I've sometimes felt like an endangered species.  Today though, it feels like we blue dogs are having our day.  Here is what I believe (maybe if you hear this you'll know why Republicans did so poorly yesterday):

1. War in Iraq:  I totally support the War on Terror, and support strong measures to fight it.  I don't, however, think the Iraq post-war period was well-planned at all.  I was persuaded by the sheer number of military experts critical of the administration to believe this was a well-executed war and a terribly-executed postwar period.  That having been said, I don't support any kind of radical redeployment.  I DO however favor some sort of strategy for success.  And I want to know, at least in general terms, what that strategy is.
2. Social issues:  I am one who believes in research - if embryonic stem cell research can help cure serious diseases, then I support it, and think the government should help fund it.  In whole, I would describe myself as a moral pragmatist - I don't consider homosexuality to be a moral lifestyle myself, but I also respect the idea that not everyone feels as I do.  I support civil unions, but not marriage for gays and lesbians.  On abortion, I think it should be safe, legal and rare - I support reasonable restrictions on abortion but not making it illegal.
3. Role of government - I don't support big government.  I also don't necessarily support small government.  I think the ultimate goal is better government, a government that partners with private industry to solve problems.  I don't think the problems of our country can be solved by either government or industry alone.

There are some things I believe...I would consider myself a right-leaning centrist who has no problem voting for a Republican if they convince me they are the better candidate...but I have to say in this election, that didn't happen often.

Saw an interesting biography last night of Barry Goldwater.  Interesting to note that:                                        

• he was pro-choice (he thought abortion was none of the government's business)
• he actually supported civil rights laws before 1964, and only opposed the 1964 law on constitutional grounds
• he hated Nixon ("the most dishonest politician I've ever known"), had a very low opinion of the Christian right's influence in the Republican Party (thought all good Christians should give Jerry Falwell a kick in the a**) and thought the Republicans needed to lay off Clinton in the impeachment issue.

Interesting to see how the "father of modern conservatism" viewed some of these issues...he was much more of a libertarian than what we would think of today as a "social conservative" 

It's really quite simple...I am about fair, honest, respectful debate.  I am a person who occasionally has a conservative perspective, occasionally a liberal one.  I think conservatives are basically decent human beings (for the most part)...same for liberals.  Hugh and Alan have the ability to disagree without frothing at the mouth or calling the other side hateful names simply for having a different point of view (unlike the aforementioned Michelle Malkin, whose book, "Unhinged," has to be the ultimate in the pot calling the kettle black, or Air America, a network whose entire corporate charter is based on disgust with President Bush on every level). 

By the way, Lanny Davis has a new book which talks about this very issue...it's excellent and even has a ringing endorsement from conservatives like Michael Medved.  Check it out.

This is what George Bush said about Colin Powell when he left his office as Secretary of State in 2004:

It's interesting now that Powell is being critical of Bush, conservatives seem to be coming out of the woodwork criticizing him.  This is a guy who basically put his reputation and 30+ year-career at risk to deliver the administration message at the United Nations, among other things.  I think to rip him to shreds now, simply because he expresses a contrary opinion (which he has every right to do), is frankly shameful.