I came across Governor Daniels petition to the USDOT to hold hearings about appropriate time zones for Indiana. I went over to the United States Dept. of Transportation web site and was unable to locate information about any proceedings. I did find a link to an e-mail address to a person apparently in charge of fielding inquiries about Daylight Saving Time enforcement. Text of the letter:

Joanne Petrie
United States Department of Transportation
joanne.petrie@ost.dot.gov

RE: Indiana Time Zones

Dear Ms. Petrie:

I recently came across a letter from Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels dated May 20, 2005 to Neil Eisner of the Office of General Counsel with respect to Indiana’s time zones. (The letter is available at
http://www.in.gov/serv/presscal?PF=aiin&Clist=196&Elist=83806). The
relevant portion is where Governor Daniels stated, “I hereby petition the United States Department of Transportation to hold hearings on the location of the boundary between the Eastern Time Zone and the Central Time Zone in Indiana.”

Searching the United States Department of Transportation’s web site, I was unable to find any specific information about how the USDOT is/will proceed with respect to any such hearings. I found a web site suggesting that you were the person to contact with respect to observance and enforcement of Daylight Saving Time.

I am a Hoosier that has been following the Indiana Daylight Saving Time debate fairly closely, and I am writing to ask you for any information you can provide with respect to how the USDOT will proceed on this matter, whether a case number of some sort has been opened, and/or whether any information is available online about the USDOT’s studies, requests for comments, time lines, and the like.

(On the off chance it might be valuable to you, a directory of my blog entries on DST can be found at:
http://www.masson.us/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=daylight+saving+time)

Thank you for any help you are able to provide.

Very Truly Yours,
/s/Douglas J. Masson

The Indy Star, in an editorial entitled Let’s learn from GM’s woes, strategy calls GM’s 25,000 job cuts “harsh but necessary”.

The editorial seems to approve of placing burdens squarely on the worker. Mention is made that management and government may be part of solutions. But the Star focuses on what workers need to lose to make the company successful: health benefit cuts, concessions on wages, pensions, and work rules. In an era in which workers are consistently on the short end of the stick it’s typical that the Star would recommend more of the same.

For our long term health, I suggest that: 1) We need to place our trade partners on an equal footing — that is to say require as part of a free market that other countries not be able to tie one hand behind our back by dumping costs on atrocious environmental practices and unconscionable treatment of workers. 2) Stop the increased concentration of wealth in the hands of the hyper wealthy — use the estate tax at the level it was envisioned by our founders as a source of revenue for the government and as a means of inhibiting the development of an American aristocracy, use the revenues from the estate tax as a means by which to reduce income tax. It’s indefensible that our policy makers have decided to pursue the elimination of the estate tax as “tax relief” before reducing the income tax. Who has a greater claim to their money: the worker to his paycheck at the end of a weak of labor or the heir to his father’s estate? 3) Healthcare — the costs are spiraling upward at an alarming rate. The money is not resulting in better or more healthcare for the general population, increased income for doctors, or (despite what you’ve heard) increased medical malpractice lawsuit awards. The answer probably isn’t socialized medicine, but rather some sort of single payer insurance capable of wringing out whatever waste is obviously being committed in the healthcare system.

I would also suggest that the loss of our manufacturing base puts our national defense in serious jeopardy. Our success in World War II was based largely on our ability to convert private manufacturing into military manufacturing. If another war comes along that requires the production of a great deal of hardware, we simply won’t have the capacity or people skilled in such manufacturing. On the other hand, we’ll have no problem bagging our conqueror’s purchases when they occupy our Wal-marts.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette has an editorial entitled Legislative prayers. The paper takes Speaker Bosma to task for allowing sectarian prayer as part of the official business of the Indiana House of Representatives. What’s more, they call him on his b.s. response to the ICLU’s lawsuit:

Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma has declared his indignation over a lawsuit challenging the type of prayers that began the House sessions this year, but Bosma only has himself to blame.

As speaker, Bosma tolerated clergy giving messages that pushed the bounds of propriety in an official government function. Ministers simply should not be given the floor of the House to proselytize or lead the singing of “Just a Little Walk with Jesus” in the halls of government.

Many Hoosier Christians may well question what is wrong with ministers repeatedly referring to Jesus when they lead the House in prayer. In a state where Christianity is overwhelmingly the religion of choice, it can be difficult to remember that Jews, Muslims, Mormons and followers of other non-Christian religions are among the citizens whom members of the House serve. The majority may rule, but religious freedom is meant to protect those who are in the minority as well.

“This is another unfortunate effort to use the courts to restrict the opportunity for public citizens and legislators to exercise their right to free speech,” Bosma said – disingenuously – in reaction to the lawsuit that the Indiana Civil Liberties Union filed. The fact is that no one speaks in the House without the speaker’s permission. Non-legislators rarely address the House on the chamber floor, and they do so only when the speaker approves. Sporting and entertainment stars get the privilege. Everyday Hoosiers rarely do.

Though Bosma has expressed outrage that the courts will become involved, there should be no surprise that sermonizing on the House floor is the target of a lawsuit. Given the principle of the separation of church and state and the wording of the First Amendment, religious words in the halls of government have frequently been the subject of lawsuits. Courts have, for the most part, sought to strike the balance between freedom of speech and preventing government endorsement of a specific religion.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1983 case involving the Nebraska Legislature, ruled that opening sessions with prayer “has become a part of the fabric of our society” and is permissible – as long as “there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.”

The distinction is reasonable and fair. Had Bosma followed it, there would be no lawsuit.

Normally I try to merely excerpt portions of articles, but that one was so well and concisely written, I didn’t see any filler to be removed. So, my apologies to the Journal Gazette, and I would encourage anyone from that organization to let me know if they feel I’ve overstepped the bounds of copyright propriety.

Also as an aside, since I’ve started this blog, I’ve become aware of what a quality publication the Journal Gazette is. Good writing. Coverage of a state-wide scope (with obvious concentration around Fort Wayne). It’s nice to have a competitor with the Indianapolis Star for state coverage.

I like the Colts, and I’m interested in politics. But somehow, I just can’t get myself interested in the twists and turns of funding the Colts stadium. But, the Indy Star has an article entitled Daniels on the stump, this time for stadium, in case you’re interested.

The Indy Star has an article on the Indiana Civil Liberties Union entitled ICLU leaders balance freedom and faith which I highly recommend. It takes some time to examine the ICLU’s involvement with issues concerning government and expressions of faith. The ICLU is not against religion generally, it’s against the involvement of government with religion. Government should not be in the God business.

Opposed to the ICLU you really have some people and organizations showing their stripes. On the one hand, you have Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute acting much like Brother Dobson’s American Family Association. Smith denounces the ICLU as ‘attacking people of faith’ while Micah Clark of the American Family Association says the ICLU shows ‘an unmistakable ICLU bias against Christianity’. Clark whines that the ICLU hasn’t gone after Jews or Muslims. (Clark doesn’t say whether, for example, Muslims have invoked Allah as the God to whom we all pray while speaking from the Speaker’s podium as part of the official business of the House of Representatives.) The Star article says, “those who would accuse the organization of having it in for God misunderstand where the ICLU is coming from, its leaders say.”

I think it’s generous to say that Smith and Clark ‘misunderstand’ the ICLU’s position. I think they either don’t care what the position is or they know and deliberately lie about it. When they get their followers all riled up, those followers are easier to lead and are more likely to send money.

On the other hand, you have a more honest disagreement with the ICLU from the American Center for Law and Justice. Francis Manion of that organization says that he consideres charges that the ICLU is against people of faith to be unfair. “What they are really about is pushing their own world view of what the boundaries should be between religion and public life — and I think their view is wrong,” Manion said. I’d suggest it’s the boundaries between religion and government rather than ‘public life’ generally. But, in any case, he has a reasonably accurate statement of the ICLU’s position and that he disagrees. That’s fair. A reasonable discussion of the proper involvement of religion with government can follow.

Incendiary demonization and misrepresentation that Smith and Clark are engaged in is inexcusable. That sort of “debate” should be shunned as should the organizations engaged in poisoning the public discourse. Forthright and honest disagreement like that put forth by Mr. Manion is entirely appropriate.

The Indy Star is reporting that 24 protesters have been arrested after they spray painted the State House. They were part of a group protesting the I-69 expansion. These idiots don’t seem to understand that’s my house they’re vandalizing. I don’t care what you’re mad about, you don’t vandalize the State House. It’s a nice piece of architecture, and it’s the heart of my state.

Update 6/6/05: The Indy Star has a follow up article basically recapping the story and noting that “Roadless Summer Campaign” the group sponsoring the protest officially denounced the spray painting. “”A couple individuals took things into their own hands and engaged in vandalism,” Martinez said Sunday. “It was out of the hands of organizers.””

Good news: You got your media attention. Bad news: Your position is now associated with spray painting the State House. Guess they should’ve gotten their pockets lined by big money sponsors and bought commercials and lobbyists like anyone else.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette is reporting that BMV chief feels heat in region. BMV chief Joel Silverman has been attending hearings on his proposed BMV closings and has been taking some heat from the citizenry. Some quotes from Silverman:

“It’s been a learning experience for me, getting a feel for small towns versus big cities.”

“Now you know why I waited till the legislation session was over,” Silverman said. “If you want to change the status quo … you’re going to rub some political toes.”

“I didn’t quite expect this response,” he said. “I didn’t expect people would care so much about a license branch.”

In general — and maybe it’s because my ox isn’t getting gored — I tend to sympathize with Silverman’s position. Cut the deadwood and save the state some money. My mind would certainly change if it turns out that the busier BMV branches are making Hoosiers wait considerable amounts of time to get their business done.

The handout also listed the number of transactions at local branches, as of April this year, and the population per branch.

Through April, the Garrett branch processed 11,895 transactions, and the Butler branch processed 7,615, according to the BMV. The average branch in Indiana processed 24,000 transactions.

On average, each of the three DeKalb branches serves 13,500 residents. In Allen County, each of the three branches serves 112,500.

Silverman, who expects to announce 20 to 70 more branch closings in the next few weeks, hopes that residents will see the numbers and recognize the sense in the plan.

Some of the fireworks:

“I think Indiana, northeast Indiana, is going to turn the lights out on Gov. Daniels,” he said.

The firehouse erupted in screams and applause.

Silverman remained calm throughout the hearing, returning to his seat after the crowd interrupted him at the lectern and literally demanded he sit down.

He simply sat, his faced turned at attention while Butler resident Larry Kirk criticized him and encouraged state Rep. Dick Dodge, R-Pleasant Lake, and state Sen. Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, to get rid of him.

“I charged Mr. Dodge and Mr. Kruse with the responsibility of firing you,” Kirk said. “Who gave you carte blanche to … do all the things that you’re doing?”

Again, I sympathize with Mr. Silverman, having been present at county-level meetings where the county officials had to deliver unpleasant information concerning the law as it pertained to flood plain reconstruction. Folks generally don’t want to hear about government rules or decisions that have a negative impact on their lives personally, regardless of how much sense the policies make at the general level. But, that’s politics and government, I suppose. You stay in private business if you aren’t prepared to take the heat.

The Journal and Courier has an editorial about the ICLU’s suit against the Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives endorsing sectarian prayer as official business of the State of Indiana.

Basically, the J&C characterizes the ICLU as a burr under the saddle of those who see nothing wrong with mixing God and the process of American government. They say it’s the ICLU who is driving a wedge between Hoosiers who have a hard enough time getting along with respect to religious issues. However, they also ask whether having a prayer to kick off House business is really necessary since it gets really close to the line drawn by that pesky Constitution. Speaker Bosma, on the other hand, feels that not allowing prayer as a part of official House business would be an “attack on people of faith.”

I think the J&C’s article is fairly sensible. But, the more I think about it, the more it strikes me as a bad idea to leave government mixed with religion unchallenged simply because people who like prayer with government will be upset about it. Unlike chocolate and peanut butter, they are not two great tastes that taste great together. They’re more like ice cream and ketchup.

The public quotes will be like those issued by Bosma: “censorship of people of faith” or some variation thereof. Contrary to the assertions of Speaker Bosma and those of James Dobson’s minions, this isn’t about shutting religion out of the public square. It’s about keep religion out of government. Private citizens can go to any public forum they want and proclaim their faith as they see fit. In fact, the ICLU will defend their right to do so. But you’ll never see the people who are upset by this kind of thing acknowledge that fact. These folks like to generalize about the persecution of the people of faith generally in these situations, instead of talking about their religion specifically, because they know that the Wiccans are never going to have the political clout to have some kind of moon-worship ceremony to kick off the House’s business, and they know that the Muslims aren’t likely to invite the Representatives to face Mecca and pray any time soon. This is all about demonstrating the primacy of a certain religious sect.

The folks likely to get particularly incensed about this are the folks who think that “American has a duty to share a living savior with a dying world.” Those are the words of the “Ohio Restoration Project” an effort of Brother Dobson and his ilk to politicize certain Christians through efforts like “God and Country Rallies where the issues of the day are underscored and highlighted and the Judeo-Christian ethic is affirmed.” The Presbyterian Reverend John Lentz has said of this movement:

This is not America’s mission. This is frightening, diabolical stuff for non-Christians and Christians alike. It is blasphemous to claim that any earthly kingdom is God’s kingdom. The theological foundations of this movement are vacuous. They are set on the sands of opportunism, self-righteousness and greed.

The politicization of religion is an effort that will not do anybody any good — other than Brother Dobson and similar charlatans who will certainly be enriched and empowered by stirring the emotions of the faithful.

This is a tough one for me. According to an Indianapolis Star article, entitled ICLU sues over prayers read at Statehouse, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union is suing Speaker Brian Bosma asking for an injunction on references to Jesus Christ in the daily prayers delivered before the House of Representatives.

My first thought is, it doesn’t break my leg or pick my pocket; I don’t care.

My second thought as a lawyer and a person knowledgeable about European history is that a wall between Church & State is a very valuable thing. Mixing religion with politics is toxic.

My third thought is that this is relatively innocuous, and you know it’s not going to get accurate coverage. Take the Star’s Headline “ICLU sues over prayers read at Statehouse” — at first blush it looks like the ICLU is against any praying at the Statehouse. Well, no, and if you read into the article, they tell you the truth. But the headline sets the tone. What the ICLU is, in fact, suing over are prayers specifically invoking Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior as official business of the House of Representatives.

Next, look at the quotes that get to go relatively unscathed:

Micah Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana, said it was ironic that a group that so strongly supports freedom would seek to stifle speech from Christians.

“Once again, people who preach about tolerance so much are appearing intolerant of people of devout faith,” Clark said. “This is a tradition that has gone on for many years, and I think it has the broad support of most Hoosiers.”

There is no indication that Clark revised his response when advised that the law suit did not involve expressions of faith by individuals in the private sector. And, indeed, it did not involve expressions of faith generally, but only prayers to Jesus Christ as part of the official business of the House of Representatives. But, then the Star reports that Mr. Clark is linked up with James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. (You might recall Dobson as the fellow who compared the Supreme Court to the Ku Klux Klan and has Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in his pocket, egging him on to end the filibuster to enable placement of judges on the bench who are religiously acceptable to Mr. Dobson.)

So, on the one hand, the prayer in the House is no big deal to me, and I don’t really like agitating sincere Christians who don’t do much to bother me. On the other hand, mixing church and state is a bad idea, and I really hate letting rabble-rousers like Dobson who use religion for self-aggrandizement bully the rest of us into accepting something other than secular government.

The article cites one instance the ICLU found inappropriate for reading as part of the the official business of the Indiana House of Representatives:

One striking example took place April 5, the ICLU says, when the Rev. Clarence Brown of Second Baptist Church, of Bedford, encouraged lawmakers to stand and clap as he sang “Just a Little Walk with Jesus.”

However, what I would find most illuminating is the relative number of Christians invited to say the prayer of the day versus Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Jews, and people of other faiths. If you have a wide and balanced variety of faiths, giving preference to none, I would have no problem with strong statements of faith by any one of them. But, if you couple an overwhelming majority of Christians with exhortations to regard Jesus Christ as your Lord & Savior, I think you have an Establishment of Religion problem.

The ICLU’s statement is here.:

“The lawsuit does not seek to prevent opening the House session with prayers, but asks that the prayers be offered in a non-sectarian manner consistent with respect for the beliefs of all Indiana residents and the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all,” said ICLU Legal Director Kenneth J. Falk. “Our lawmakers represent every Indiana citizen, so it is myopic to not see that this type of prayer will exclude and alienate some Hoosiers.”

On dozens of occasions during the 2005 session of the Indiana General Assembly, visiting ministers or legislators themselves offered prayers with a heavy Christian emphasis that invoked Jesus Christ. Although in the 1983 case of Marsh v. Chambers the United States Supreme Court allowed non-sectarian prayers to begin legislative sessions, the ICLU charged that the Indiana practice far exceeds what was allowed by the Court.

On April 5, after an invocation that included the statement, “I thank you Jesus for dying for me,” the Speaker of the House announced that the minister “is going to bless us with a song.” The minister proceeded to sing, “Just A Little Talk With Jesus” and legislators and onlookers were prompted to stand, clap and sing along. During the hymn, several House members walked out of the chamber in protest, and at least one lobbyist attempted to leave the gallery area but was barred from doing so by a House employee. The Indianapolis Star published a photo of this incident the next day.

The case is entitled Hinrichs v. The Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Indiana General Assembly and is Cause Number 1:05-CV-813 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Update 6/1/06 9:30 a.m. The ICLU Complaint is available here. (pdf) There is also an exhibit to the Complaint which seems to just be a copy of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is available here.

Update #2 According to the ICLU’s Complaint (pdf), a clergy person who performs the prayer receives, at taxpayer expense, a photo of the clergy member with the Speaker as well as letter(s) of thanks from various House members. During the 2005 legislative session there were prayers offered from the Speaker’s stand with the approval of the Speaker that were clearly sectarian in nature and which advanced Christianity. The Complaint lists a number of such occasions, including:

“We thank you for the privilege of coming together today in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1/11/05 Rev. David Leader);

“This we ask in the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ, our Savior.” (2/7/05 Rev. Samuel Bush.)

“We ask all of this in Christ’s name.” (2/8/05 Representative Eric Turner.)

“We thank you O Lord that you are our savior and soon coming King.” (4/6/05 Representative Jackie Warlowski);

“It is in Christ’s name we pray.” (4/13/05 Pastor Shan Retherford.)

“To our Lord and Savior. . . We ask this in your son’s name, whom is the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, your son Jesus Christ, who gave us the most precious gift of all, to die on the cross for our sins.” (4/18/05 Representative David Frizzell.)

“I appeal to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ; As a minister of the Gospel, I exercise my right to declare this room a hallowed place and I invite into this place, into the decisions that will be made today, to each person the mighty holy spirit of Christ; I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ, your Son, our savior and Lord.” (4/29/05 Rev. Lloyd Descario.)

Keep in mind, these aren’t from a church service or a Bible study or even from a citizen proclaiming his faith from the steps of the State House. These are speeches made by clergy members invited by the Speaker of Indiana’s House of Representatives and given from the podium of the Speaker of the House.

The plaintiffs are: 1) a Quaker lobbyist who has stopped lobbying while the practice continues and  who believes that the prayers favor one form of religious belief over another and who believes that it is wrong for taxpayers to fund and to thank the clergy members for committing a Constitutional violation; 2) a Methodist minister who believes that allowing sectarian prayers is an affront to Indiana’s citizens and raises questions about the State’s respect for the religious beliefs of all Hoosiers’ religious beliefs; and 3) two  Christian taxpayers and Indiana citizens who believe that sectarian prayer discourages diversity and imposes Christianity on non-Christians.

Update #3: Some other blogs with commentary on this issue:

Religion Clause by Howard Friedman, Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Toledo.

Praying Woman who apparently believes that somebody’s freedom is being unduly limited if prayers directed to Jesus Christ are not allowed as official business of the Indiana General Assembly.

Hoosier Illuminati who doesn’t necessarily disagree that the sectarian prayers are inappropriate, but doesn’t think it’s important enough to bother with. He makes the unfounded assumption that the ICLU will go after non-sectarian prayer next. (If you go to the ICLU’s Complaint (pdf) they cite as established law that non-sectarian prayer is permissible.) As to the complaint about real civil rights violations the ICLU could attend to, see this entry.

Reps. Hostetler and Sodrel (among others, including Rep. Spencer “Bill Maher is a Trator” Bachus) have introduced legislation to limit 42 U.S.C. 1983 civil rights actions. Specifically, they want to limit the remedy for violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to injunctive relief only. Currently, any civil rights violation under color of state law is subject to a monetary judgment. In addition, successfully prosecuting violations of the First Amendment’s prohibition against establishment of religion –unlike every other kind of civil rights violation– would not entitled the Plaintiff to an award of attorney’s fees.

The current text of 42 U.S.C. 1983 is here. If our fine Religion Establishing representatives were successful, the new statute would look like this:

Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

(a) 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.
(b) The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.

Also, 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) would be changed to look like this:

(b) Attorney’s fees

In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction. However, no fees shall be awarded under this subsection with respect to a claim described in subsection (b) of section nineteen hundred and seventy nine.