One of my on-going volunteer interlocutors has pointed out that the section of the Idaho Code I cited a post or so ago (requiring Bible reading in public schools) is a four-decades old dead duck, legally speaking. She points out that it was passed in 1963 and declared unconstitutional in 1964. She did not add, although she could have, that I was eleven years old when it was struck down. She then added some general exhortations for me to get with the program, although not put in exactly that way.
Now I acknowledge the legal facts cheerfully, and yet point out that said law is still published in the Idaho Code, no doubt as a protest against overweening federal encroachments. Why not take a law out of the Code if it has been declared unconstitutional? Isn’t forty years long enough? I posted what I did, knowing that the law had either been declared unconstitutional, or that it was not enforced precisely because everybody knew that it would be struck down as unconstitutional. But in either case, for whatever reason, there it still is.
But that is not the central point. The Code (and this whole set-up) is still edifying for us to talk about for all that. For example, it is also against federal law to use zoning restrictions as a means of discriminating against religious institutions. When it comes down to the final decision on NSA, our city solons will have a regular Hobson’s choice before them, which is to say, no real choice at all. This unhappy circumstance will have been brought to them by a handful of unhappy and irascible intoleristas. If they do not opt for a reasonable reading of the code, or an appropriate change in the code, the city will have to evict NSA, not only from downtown, but also from the city entirely. All the arguments that apply to NSA downtown apply equally to NSA everywhere else in town. They will have to do this on an even-handed basis, also evicting Moscow High School (because a similar situation applies to them), for example, or they will do it just to NSA. If they do it to all entities that do not comply with the insane readings of the code now current, they will not be guilty of discrimination, but they will be guilty of disrupting the life of just about everybody in town. But if they go for selective enforcement of the law, and do it just to NSA, contrary to federal law, then they should also want to set up Bible readings throughout the Moscow School District. This follows, like late morning follows early morning.
Another quick point should be made. Laws are struck down as unconstitutional because there is a dispute about the law, and it is frequently the case that a lower decision is set aside during the course of appeals. When NSA moved into its current building, we were not doing so as a renegade set of collegiate squatters. Everything was coordinated with the appropriate city officials. Two years later, after we were settled in, some folks with personal issues (which will become legally relevant soon enough) found what they thought was an argument from the code, and they begin their grudge appeals. We won the first round, and they won the second. We are still in the process of working through this process of appeals. And when Dr. Atwood, a well-respected member of our community, attempts to speak at a public hearing, and is greeted with catcalls and booing, this reveals the personal and vindictive nature of the motivations of those calling for selective and discriminatory enforcement of the law. And, as I said, these personal reasons will soon become legally relevant, and very interesting. Not only so, but they are also published all over the place.
Appealing a decision is not an example of being a scofflaw. If it were, then our intolerista friends would have vilified those who challenged the requirement of Bible reading in the public school . . . if it were all about the code. But it is not about the code; it is about personal animosity and the ability of some driven by personal animosity to manipulate the legal process. But, as I have written earlier, the whole thing is wearing thin, and has become screamingly obvious. But in case it is not obvious enough yet, I urge all our friends on the other side of this thing to keep on writing. Please.