Mr. Lay was pronounced not guilty of the contempt charges [see previous entry for explanation]. Good for him. He’s really lucky. Personally, I think the entire school was lucky. They could have easily lost their state funding for all that they did and perhaps rightfully so. I just wanted to clear up a few things about the case though, or rather, refute what I’ve heard people say.
In your face, ACLU.
How so? The ACLU brought charges against the school and school board and won their case. A court order was made that said the school must stop. Mr. Lay and Freeman were charged with contempt of court for violating that order. The ACLU had nothing to do with the contempt charges. In fact, the ACLU repeatedly said that they never wanted anyone to go to jail over this. Hence, the above statement is foolish.
There were no students present at the luncheon.
Actually, there were students present at the luncheon. Culinary class students were in charge of the food preparation and serving.
The faculty luncheon was not a school function.
Umm… yeah it was… Just because it was for faculty (which is part of… school), doesn’t mean it wasn’t a school function. There were teachers there and school board members there and it was for a new school building… that’s what’s called a school function.
Lay was pronounced not guilty because a contempt charge must be "intentional." The judge pronounced him not guilty because she didn’t have enough evidence that he intended to violate. The issue of it being a "school function" or there being students there or not were never questions. Although the judge pronounce him not guilty, she did say to him, "At the end of the day, I do have some doubts about whether you intended to comply." In other words, the judge bought his "it was just a reflex" explanation. The next time he does it, I doubt he’ll get as much leniency. Let’s hope he doesn’t screw up again.
I’ve seen other comments, and think two things are probably going to happen as a result of all this. (1) JoAnn Simpson, the school board member who turned him in, is probably not going to make re-election because she did what was right. (2) Mr. Lay is probably going to make a run for superintendent. If he waits until he retires from principle, he’ll be drawing two paychecks: One for being a retired principle and the other for being superintendent. One thing is for sure, Mr. Lay is a much better politician than I gave him credit. He’s also a very typical “conservative politician”. In other words, he takes advantage of the ultra-religious right.
Before you call me a “liberal” or a God-hater, know that I am not. You see, I am, what I call, a libertarian. By that, I mean that I do not want some government getting too involved in the lives of the free people. By Mr. Lay (a member of the government) sponsoring a particular religion (or at least his version of that religion), he is getting too involved in the lives of the free people. Teaching and endorsing religious philosophy is the job of individual people (like churches and mosques, etc), not government-instituted schools! Personally, I do not understand how any American Christian can disagree. Keeping government out of religion was one of the reasons why Christians came to the new world in the first place. Ironically, since then, American Christians have made it their goal to force (rather than persuade) beliefs on others. This is my view, and I myself am a Christian.