Rep. Heim has a blog

It appears that Rep. Steve Heim (R-Culver) has a blog. It apparently started last night with an entry on the House Prayer issue.

I took issue in particular with this paragraph:

I am very disappointed by the judge’s ruling because it is wrong to censor what a visiting cleric may say. Censoring prayer is a violation of freedom of speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. I’m sure our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves after this decision.

He also indicated the possibility of civil disobedience. I responded on his blog by repeating themes I’ve been talking about here. But, I’m not one to shy away from some repetition:

With all due respect, Representative Heim, I believe your post misses the distinction between government speech and private speech. Because the Speaker of the House controlled access to the Speaker’s podium and that podium is not, in fact, open to the public, the speech from the ministers from that podium was government speech, not private speech. This is a vital distinction, one which Speaker Bosma conceded in the court proceedings but apparently forgets or ignores in his public statements.

The First Amendment does not create a limitation on private speech. It does, however, impose a limitation on government speech, which is all the Court did.

It would be unfortunate to perpetuate a myth that the Court is attempting to regulate private speech. All the Court has done is engage in the limitation of government speech. Limitation of government is the First Amendment’s purpose, and that is how it has been used in this instance.

I think the public would be well served if those of you in the legislature consider Judge Hamilton’s words when he wrote:

“When the Founders of this Nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . .” The Founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths. The Founders also knew centuries of history in which religious conflicts had caused war and oppression. They recognized that even the best intentions of people of faith can lead to division, exclusion, and worse. And they recognized that a majority who sees its faith as true and benign can be tempted in a democratic republic to try to use the power and prestige of government to advance that faith in ways that would actually divide and exclude.”

I thought there was yet more wisdom in Judge Hamilton’s statement:

“We cannot adopt a view of the tradition of legislative prayer that chops up American citizens on public occasions into representatives of one sect and one sect only, whether Christian, Jewish, or Wiccan. In private observances, the faithful surely choose to express the unique aspects of their creeds. But in their civic faith, Americans have reached more broadly. Our civic faith seeks guidance that is not the property of any sect. To ban all manifestations of this faith would needlessly transform and devitalize the very nature of our culture. When we gather as Americans, we do not abandon all expressions of religious faith. Instead, our expressions evoke common and inclusive themes and forswear, as Chesterfield has done, the forbidding character of sectarian invocations.”

Finally, I’d suggest Rep. Bosma in particular use caution when deciding whether to engage in civil disobedience as to Judge Hamilton’s ruling. Speaker Bosma is a citizen, a legislator, and a lawyer. The first two have some considerable discretion with respect to civil disobedience. Lawyers, on the other hand, have a greater duty as officers of the court to obey judicial orders.