Last night we were finally able to relax. Rich Bolton and Richard Heinemann flew back to Madison. Annie Laurie and Anne and I had a nice dinner at a French Restaurant near Union Station, the "Bistro Bis." In a couple of hours Anne and I are flying back to Madison, and Annie Laurie is flying to Minneapolis for a talk at the University about religion and women.

Today the Washington Post has an article about our case. Using Google News, it looks like there are 300+ such stories in papers around the country this morning. For example, the Los Angeles Times ran a story:

      Supreme Court hears arguments in faith-based initiative case
      The justices seem split on whether to allow a challenge to Bush's plan on 1st Amendment grounds.
      By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
      March 1, 2007

The publicity from this case has been overwhelming. Jackie (FFRF staff) emailed to tell us that the Freedom From Religion Foundation passed 9,000 members yesterday . . . and she and Nora and Lynn still have a large stack of new members to add, plus more than 2,000 "prospects" who will be receiving information from us.  We have been rolling around in our minds what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, and the discussions we are having are something of a roller-coaster ride. Of course, it is impossible to make a rediction about the outcome . . . and we waver between the extremes of pessimism and optimism. But even if we get a bad decisioin, and all taxpayers end up losing their right to have their day in court . . . to "take it all the way to the Supreme Court" . . . at least we can say that WE had a chance to do exactly that.


Dan Barker

It was a long day. My impressions: We walked over from our hotel to the Supreme Court at about 7:45 a.m. (including my 80 year old mother). Dan chivalrously had carried my "good shoes" in his brief case so I hurriedly took off my sneakers and put them on (heels and pointed toes) as we arrived at the court. Long lines were already snaking halfway up the steps stretching into the sidewalk. To me it looked like hundreds were waiting and I learned later that many were turned away. Some of the Yale Law students who worked on our case listened to piped-in audio because they couldn't get tickets.

Dan Harris, ABC's reporter, who found us shortly after 8 a.m., mainly wanted to talk about what I had called "the renaissance of atheism" when he had phoned last week for a pre-interview, and that made a refreshing change, actually. It was nice to talk freely about freethought, instead of trying once again to put into a soundbite our rather complicated lawsuit, in which we have to be so careful what we say! I think it's great that ABC News is interested in covering the phenomenon of Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' bestselling atheistical works! His producer, Paul Baben (spelling?) was very thoughtful, and, I have to say, at least as handsome as Harris! Harris has beautiful manners, and that knack of appearing to truly be interested in what you are saying! When he told us this would appear on the Sunday evening news, I wondered aloud whether that meant it could be pre-empted by a sports event. He said if so, it would run another night. I added, "We wouldn't want your early morning to have been in vain," and he admitted he had awoken at 5:30 a.m. to start his commute for this story. So it was a long day for many of us.

I'm afraid the wind was blowing and it was very cold standing there in front of the Supreme Court so my nose may be red. My toes were certainly cold. After the filming was over for ABC News, we found my mother, who had bashfully retired off-camera, and our Madison attorney, Rich Bolton and his law partner, Richard Heineman, and started a long trek to the side of the courthouse. My dumb high heels kept sticking in what appears to be liquid cement between the bricks. We waited in line a long time to reach the warmth of the entry way.


Annie Laurie

The place was packed. We were told we had to wait until 9 a.m. to be seated. I got some hot tea in the cafeteria, but was reprimanded when I took it back out into the lobby to share with my mother. An attorney sitting next to her on the marble bench muttered to her in amazement that he had been at a previous hearing about a tax question, and "there was no trouble getting seats." I recognized almost no one. I felt like asking, "Friend or foe?"

We were finally allowed to go upstairs where we dutifully put nearly everything into lockers or cloakrooms. The plainclothes police startled me, soon after most everyone was seated (a packed house) by "shushing" everyone: "Keep it down, people!" This was continual! Everyone was talking very solemnly. What was the problem? My mother cracked me up by leaning over and asiding, "You'd think we were a pack of yipping dogs!"  "I didn't know going to the Supreme Court was like going to kindergarten!" etc. I added: "Maybe they should have lined us up in 'boy' and 'girl' lines." It was just too much when the officers began addressing everyone in the front rows, telling them not to chew gum. (I don't think any of them were --this is just a routine prohibition.) One officer explained, "Some people just don't know how to chew gum. You're sitting in the front row and it's very distracting." I found the officers quite distracting once the argument began because they kept blocking the view! At ten minutes to ten, they sternly announced, "Absolutely NO TALKING from this point on!" Geez! What a boring 10 minutes...

I was pleasantly surprised by how hard Scalia and some of the other justices were on the solicitor general, who argued the case. I wanted to bite my nails when they turned their questioning to our attorney.

About 20 years ago the Court changed its policy of letting each side state its case without interruption for the first 20 minutes, and now it's a free for all. It seemed like a frustrating set-up to me. But as Dan said, it seemed equal opportunity. However, Roberts clearly, even painfully obviously, rescued the solicitor general, helping him out.

There wasn't really that kind of aid for our attorney, but nor had we expected that.

As we keep saying, if the legal precedent is followed, we should have a unanimous victory, so we'll hope for the best. It does look like Kennedy, as fully expected, is the swing vote. He kept his own counsel, although there was a hostile question for Andy Pincus, to balance a hostile question for the government, from him.  It was fascinating to see the court in person and at work. It was hard, with so much at stake, to feel comfortable during any of it.

We had learned before the court convened that the New York Times ran a positive editorial on our behalf today. It's titled: "Government by Law, not Faith." Hurray for The New York Times for this move. And the USA article is very nice. There's the photo of me behind our door imprinted with "Freedom From Religion Foundation" taken by local AP photographer Morry Gash, with a smaller :) photo of Solicitor General Paul Clement. I wouldn't have recognized him but then, during the oral argument, all I saw was the back of his head!

On the way out we bumped into two professors with George Washington University who analyze faith-based cases for the Rockefeller religion and social policy website: Professors Lupu and Tuttle. It was fun to put a face to those names, and they were jocular, joking that the Foundation is a "meal ticket" for them since our faith-based cases give them so much to analyze!

Afterward, we repaired down the multitudinous steps of the Supreme Court for media, although that was hardly a mob session. I am impressed that my mother, who has vision problems, was game to descend them, holding my hand and with coaching.  The white all blurs together, and it was a beautiful late morning, so the reflection was bright. We spoke with a lovely reporter from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel who lives in D.C. and covers it and I was very pleased to finally meet in person Adelle Banks, who has phoned us for years for interviews with the Religious News Service. She is a very charming person. Some of the freethinkers and secular supporters who had attended the rally were still there, and I shook hands with its organizer, Roy Spreckhardt, of AHA. The media were friendly and we felt in general like we were among friends.

In addition to representing us pro bono, the law firm of Mayer & Brown treated us to lunch two days in a row. The long polished boardroom table was impressive and we and the Yale Law school students were treated to a full catered hot meal, and very good cookies. Much of the discussion was a post-mortem. It took a few hours to really relax, but I knew Rich Bolton, our thin Madison attorney, was pleased because he really piled food on his plate and dug in. I think he was too nervous to eat much the day before! We really enjoyed the presence of Richard Heineman as well, from Rich's law firm, who sat with us during the oral arguments, often with a smile of great enjoyment on his face. Richard is Rich's sounding board, a very important role, we learned, because Andy Pincus also relies on one of his law partners for the same service.

I have missed Nina Totenberg's first report, unfortunately, but anyone interested should be able to find reporting on the case in various news mediums. We did interviews before C-Span, CNN (which, oddly, said it would run this weekend), AP radio, CNN radio, and even a Methodist medium! I never feel like I really understand what happens at the Supreme Court until I hear Nina Totenberg's expert summation, and look forward to it, but the definitive written word is with that great reporter, Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times. I will await tomorrow's news story by her with great anticipation.

Dan has "outed" me as going out shopping this afternoon. Union Station is 3 blocks away so the temptation was too strong to withstand, but it was a nice frivolous break. We hope to find a really good restaurant to dine at tonight, after sampling the "captive audience" dinner at our hotel last night, which left something to be desired. As the great agnostic, Robert G. Ingersoll said, "A good meal lost is gone forever."

One of us still has to get up early tomorrow to go into a studio to do an interview with the BBC. I'm vague about whether it is radio or TV.

Thanks for reading this, and caring about this issue! I'll probably be signing off on this saga now, since tomorrow I go back to regular duties, and fly into Minneapolis to speak on a panel about "Is religion good for women?" Now THAT is an easy debate!

PS. Dan will fly directly home tomorrow, weather permitting.  I gather 9 more inches are predicted for Madison, Wis. This time HE gets to do all the shoveling!


Annie Laurie

Before the oral arguments in our case before the Supreme Court, we met at 8:15 am with the producer and reporter with ABC News, who interviewed us for a long time standing in front of the Supreme Court. Their story is scheduled to run on the Sunday Evening News. They were interested in our lawsuit, but surprisingly they seemed more interested in what Annie Laurie is calling the "Renaissance of Freethought" in America. They asked me a lot of questions about my story of converting from evangelical minister to atheist, and they talked with Annie Laurie a lot about our hopes to make the world a better place by minimizing the effects of religious belief. They also took a lot of footage of the happenings at the Supreme Court, including the rally that was staged in our favor.

A number of groups sympathetic to state/church separation and freethought held a rally in support of our lawsuit, at the bottom of the steps of the Supreme Court. Led by the American Humanist Association, the participants and speakers in the rally included people from the Secular Coalition for America, American Atheists, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, and other groups. Unfortunately, Annie Laurie and Anne and I were unable to participate in that rally since we had to go inside to get our seats in the Supreme Court . . . which is quite a process, just to get in.

As I was going in the door on the Maryland Street side of the building, I discovered I was standing between Ayesha Kahn of AU and Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ (Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, which had submitted an amicus brief in favor of the government). "So what do you predict?" Ayesha asked Jay. "I think we have at least 4 votes," he said, somewhat self-consciously. "Well, so do we," she said, which is no surprise. Ha . . . Sekulow really went out on a limb with that one!

Security is very tight at the Supreme Court. All of our belongings had to be screened, and then they had to be stored in lockers before entering the court. We were allowed to take pencil and paper, but no cameras, recording equipment, of course. Our attorneys sat up front by the justices, and we three had seats about halfway back in the audience, in the middle with a good view. We couldn't help looking around to see "who is who" and spotted many friends (including attorneys for the groups who wrote amicus briefs for us), and some enemies, including Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ, who made it a point of standing up front smiling in order to be noticed by everyone in the world. When our attorneys came into the room (Rich Bolton and Andy Pincus), they did the same thing, standing right up front, smiling, being noticed . . . and I have to say they are much more attractive people than Jay Sekulow . . .

The police kept telling the crowd to be silent, and we felt like we were kindergardeners in school seats, looking around at the setting while waiting for the justices to appear. We noticed Moses holding a tablet with the Roman numerals I through X, seated next to many other "lawgivers" (historical and mythical) up on the friezes above the courtroom. (I counted exactly 100 flowers in the ceiling).

The room, which we were told holds about 320 people, was filled to capacity, and included many students. The kids behind us were Jr. High students from a private school in North Carolina. There were many members of the press there. Some of the students from Yale Law School who had helped on our case were also present.

The Solicitor General for the US went first, and gave a very articulate argument for their position . . . a bad argument, but nevertheless articulate and confident . . . but almost immediately Justice Scalia jumped in and started questioning the logic of his argument. In short, Scalia was asking him that if it is wrong for the government to promote religion with tax dollars that are appropriated by Congress, why is it not wrong for the government to do EXACTLY the same thing with tax dollars that are not specifically appropriated by Congress? The other justices came down really hard on him.

But they came down just as hard on our side . . . equal-opportunity questioning . . . pushing Andy to specify our test for standing, coming up with many  hypothetical examples, such as the government building a church at Plymouth Rock to practice Puritanism . . . and paying for bagels at a prayer breakfast . . . and using Air Force One or the salaries of security police as he attends a religious gathering . . .

All of the justices (except Thomas) raised good questions, for both sides, and there appeared to be some bantering between justices as they were "arguing with each other." (Thomas never asks questions, as he feels that this should be a time for the parties to make their case, not for cross examination, Pincus later explained to me.) The nature of the questions seemed predictable from each justice (except for Scalia's surprising (to us) opening questions to the Solicitor General), with those "for us" asking all the right questions, and those "agin' us" asking all the wrong questions. Chief Justice Roberts seemed surprisingly candid in his apparent agreement with the government's position. The only enigma (to us) is Kennedy, who is probably the swing vote. Sekulow and Kahn are probably correct that we each have four votes . . . out of nine possible. But it is hard to tell, with all of the back-and-forth and "devil's advocate" questions that were flying around that courtroom.

Well, the arguments were a bit esoteric, since this case is not about the merits of our complaint (the establishment of faith-based offices in the government), but about our taxpayer standing to take the case in the first place. There was much mention of legal precedent, such as Flast v. Cohen and Bowen v. Kendrick, etc.

We left the court feeling like both sides were equally beat up on -- which is much better than feeling that only our side was beat up on! We will be offering a deeper analysis of what happened later, but you can read it for yourself. I think one of the strongest parts of the day was Andy Pincus's powerful closing remarks.

After the arguments were over (the only case heard today), we came out to the steps of the Supreme Court to talk to media. There was an area set aside where various media could tap into the same microphone, and Annie Laurie and I both took turns answering questions.

We also talked with the groups who organized the rally, and it was fun to see all our friends there, from various organizations, taking pictures, posing on the steps.  The ABC News crew was still there, and they had a few more questions. They filmed us walking down the last set of steps at the Supreme Court. It appears that the ABC News people are going to put together a good story. The producer asked me if I could send him some photos from my years in the ministry, and I promised to try to dig some up when I get home.

We took cabs over to Andy Pincus's law firm on K Street where they had a very nice lunch prepared in this HUGE conference room with one of those long tables that can seat about 40 people. We were joined by about a dozen of the law students from Yale Law School who had helped Andy work on the case (including a few who had not). That was really nice, talking with the students, eating a relaxed lunch, analyzing the arguments, talking about the law and the issues in this case. Those students are quite sharp, from all over the country, and very excited to be involved in a real-life case before the Supreme Court.

During the meal, my cell phone kept ringing, and we took media calls from AP Radio, the BBC News, the Capital Times (in Madison), and many others. Annie Laurie and I took turns talking to various reporters.  I have not seen them yet, but I know there have been many good stories and editorials about our case today. The New York Times ran a positive editorial, and USA Today ran a good story today.

At the luncheon, we all gave Andy Pincus a round of applause for his excellent work. He is doing this case pro bono. The day before, I had pointed out to Andy that this case does not have "deep pockets," and he immediately replied, "No, but it has deep principles." His oral arguments, combined with Rich Bolton's wonderful briefs, give us immense hope that we will prevail on this case.

Annie Laurie is over at Union Station right now, shopping, taking a break.  We are all tired, but strangely energized by what has happened today. It is pretty exciting to feel . . . to know . . . that we are a part of history. And it is heart-warming to meet so many capable friends who agree with us that the separation of state and church is a principle worth fighting for.


Dan Barker

This morning Annie Laurie and I took a coffee/tea break in the cafeteria in one of the congressional buildings near the capitol, and as I was waiting for her to come back out into the hall, I saw two men in dark suits approaching, looking like they might be legislators, intently talking, closely, having a serious discussion. As they passed me, I heard one of them say, "Yes, I have been tempted, many times, all those trips on the road away from my wife . . ." and the other one nodded, "Yes, yes . . ."

The affairs of state . . .


Dan Barker

Water Goblets & ABC News

Watch ABC Evening News Wednesday. (UPDATE: The story will run on Sunday's telecast.) We are meeting them before the oral arguments tomorrow for an interview conducted by Dan Harris. I’m told he is very handsome and very much the rising star at ABC News!
We also taped a quick radio interview with Wisconsin Public Radio which may (or may not) become part of Nina Totenberg’s national broadcast coverage. If nothing else, it will apparently run on Wisconsin Public Radio.

***

When I got to our very nice hotel at midnight last night, after an endless flight, I was “carded.” Although the hotel room was in my name, the staff (very professionally) asked me a lot of questions and checked my identity before giving me access to another guest’s room at midnight!

We got up at 5 a.m. CST to start a long day of lobbying. The “halls of Congress” are lengthy! Lobbying takes energy! Most interesting was my appointment in the Capitol with an aide for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

I hadn’t been in the Capitol for years. Even before 9/11 the security made casual access difficult. So I’d forgotten the Versailles-esque accounterments and roccoco-touches. Dan escorted me to the Capitol security entrance en route to his appointment at Barack Obama’s office. It was a long walk from the Longworth building.

Many police and guards stood around and interrogated me on who I had an appointment with and when before putting me through the typical security check. I had to check in at least twice more. Indoor staff were gracious. When I finally got my clearance badge at the end of the long corridor from a very cheerful guard, I asked how to get to Rep. Pelosi’s office, and got this unique reply: “Turn left after the third chandelier.”

The Speaker’s main office was hopping! I was told I had just  missed Gov. Swartzenegger (big deal). The receptionist was like most of the receptionists we had encountered, a young, friendly woman with good social skills and a genuine smile. Shortly after I arrived, two well-dressed men cane in whom she stood up to greet and shake hands. She turned in our direction to ask if anyone wanted something to drink.

They declined, but I was thirsty, and. since all the receptionists we’d encountered had offered water, I thought this was the usual protocol so I piped up, “I’d love some water.” The men declined, and a few minutes later, I was brought ice cold water in a beautiful glass goblet--a nice change from the usual plastic cups. A few minutes later, she deferentially ushered these men somewhere, addressing one as “Governor.” I realized that offer of refreshment was meant for them, not me! But she had been very gracious. I would say the Speaker’s main check-in desk is a hot spot to people watch!

Later this evening, we switched hotels, and joined up with my mother (who smartly had a 2-hour direct flight with no hitches), our attorney Rich Bolton, and another attorney friend for a nice dinner. We know Andy Pincus, from Mayer Brown, who is conducting the oral arguments for us pro bono, had spent the day immersed in the legal issues of our fight. When we met him earlier in the day for lunch at his firm, he was relaxed, focused and seemed entirely ready for tomorrow’s 30 minute theater. (Each side gets 30 minutes although the remarks are immediately interrupted by questions, which Andy says he really welcomes.) Let the show begin!


From Annie Laurie

 I finally got to a place where I can send emails. I was in California since Thursday, while all of you were shoveling snow. Ha!

Last Thursday I gave a talk at Royce Hall to the new UCLA group, Bruins Skeptics, and we were honored to see the octogenarian Nobel Laureate Paul Boyer in the audience. Those students are really sharp.

After the talk, we hung out at a pizza place in Westwood Village. I know this sounds like a cliché, but meeting those freethinking students makes me feel there is hope for the future! They were all very interested in our lawsuit.

I spent two days at Camp Pendleton with my kids Andrea, Rebecca, and Danny, and the grandkids Isaiah, Gavin, Ethan, Kaia and Justin. (Andrea’s husband is a Marine who just got back from Iraq. Danny, 28, is also a Marine, a chef and a great guitarist.)

Saturday evening we all sat in Andrea’s living room watching the CBS Evening News and the grandkids squealed, “There’s Papa on TV!” It was a good segment. “That’s Owen Murphy, our engineer,” I said, as The Mic 92.1 studio flashed across the screen showing the recording of Freethought Radio.

On Sunday I gave a freethought concert at the Steve Allen Theater in Hollywood for Atheists United in the Center for Inquiry West, and the group was extremely excited about our SCOTUS case.  Some of those people have been plaintiffs in state/church lawsuits. When I sang “Battle of Church and State” there was huge applause. Knowing we were headed for the Supreme Court this week made the song very relevant.

My flight from LAX to DC was long and boring, so I took advantage of the time to read Edward Humes’s new book, Monkey Girl, about the Dover Pennsylvania “intelligent design” case (he would be a great interview for Freethought Radio), and I also started Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s book, Infidel. Because of weather (they say), my luggage didn’t make it to DC with me, so last night I waited at the Ronald
R-- . . . I mean National Airport  . . . for 2.5 hours (with a free dinner from NWA), and was happy to see my bags arrive on the next flight. I was not looking forward to attending the Supreme Court in blue jeans and a T-shirt.

I got in to the Hotel last night at 10:00, but Annie Laurie didn’t arrive until after midnight. Her flight had been cancelled due to weather, and after being told she would have to come the next day (missing our meetings today), she managed to wrangle another flight in the afternoon. Our attorney Rich Bolton just called to say that he got to DC yesterday . . . so the gang’s all here!

It was a short night, but we are excited to head out to talk to staff at some congressional offices. The sky is partly cloudy, morning temperature around 40.We have a view of Union Station out our window below us, and can see the top of the Library of Congress. In 30 minutes we will catch a cab and head to Pete Stark’s office.
And tomorrow . . . the Supreme Court!


Dan Barker

The official count is that FFRF has minimally added 400 new members since last Thursday! The e-mails are still very heavy, now joined by memberships and inquiries via regular mail. Phone calls and requests for information are keeping this small office very busy!

My flight to D.C. was canceled but I'm catching an evening flight. Dan is winging his way to D.C. via California, and our attorney, Rich Bolton, of Madison has already arrived. (How Rich managed to get to D.C. out of Madison early this morning on Northwest, while my later flight was grounded, is a mystery!)

Dan and I have appointments with various Congressional aides to raise consciousness on the problems with faith-based funding. Stops include House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi's office and that of Sen. Barack Obama, and we will also stop in the offices of Rep. Bobby Scott and Rep. Pete Stark, both good supporters of state/church separation. We'll also make a courtesy call at Rep. Tammy Baldwin's office (our district) although she will not be there yet.

Two "moot courts" were held last week for the attorney doing the oral arguments, Andy Pincus, of D.C., fresh from a win last week before the Supreme Court. Both Yale Law School and Georgetown Law School thoroughly grilled him! Andy and Rich, our attorney of counsel who has brought all of our faith-based challenges, will be conferring. We will meet them at Andy's law firm for a quick lunch tomorrow.

A number of sympathetic groups are holding a rally in support of FFRF in front of the Supreme Court at 9:30 a.m. on Wed., Feb. 28, half an hour before oral arguments begin. Dan, my mother and I (as the taxpayer plaintiffs) will miss it, since we go into the Supreme Court chambers early to be seated. The oral arguments start at 10 a.m. A transcript should be up at the SCOTUS website that afternoon! The oral arguments are usually one hour. Since ours is the only case being heard on Wednesday, we've been told it's possible it will go on longer.

After the oral arguments, there is a traditional meeting of plaintiffs and attorneys with press on the steps of the Supreme Court. (We've all seen those post-argument photographs.) Then we will have the pleasure of lunching with the entire Yale Law School/D.C. firm team. Plenty of news coverage should be out about the arguments by Thursday morning.
Back to work!


Annie Laurie

Knowing that Doug Erickson's major article about the Freedom From Religion Foundation was slated to run in the Sunday issue of the Wisconsin State Journal, I hastily dressed about 8 a.m. this morning (early for me on my "day of rest"), only to sink knee-deep in snow as I set out to try to find the elusive Sunday newspaper after last night's blizzard. It was nowhere to be found, so I put curiosity at bay to brew some coffee. My heart sank a bit (since Dan is out of town) looking at the vast expanse of snow covering the endless sidewalks and driveways of our corner lot! It looked like hours of work when I needed to come into the office.

"Reinforcements" wonderfully arrived to help shovel the foot (?) of very dense snow that fell last night, in the form of a little boy down the block whose name I had been given as being a shoveler for hire. No way could this young boy, although willing and feisty, handle the job by himself! His very kind father arrived with a small electric snowblower that really helped, and the three of us plowed in. It's a psychological boost to have company when one shovels. At about 10:30 a.m. the newspaper arrived, so I took a little break to glance at it and make some hot cocoa for everyone. We had the job done in record time by 11:30 a.m. The boy's father even carved out a complete path through the snowplowed-in driveway so I could back out the car and come down to the office this afternoon.

The article has personality, humor, lots of facts, some comments from the "dark side" to provide journalistic objectivity, and takes FFRF very seriously. Doug spent hours doing his research. But, I'm kind of sad that the only photo in the newspaper edition which contains our daughter, Sabrina, in the deep background, blots out her face! The current photojournalist craze seems to be for "candids." My elbow is candidly obscuring Sabrina's face. But she didn't seem to mind. Sabrina was ecstatic that a thumbnail photo of me on page one also features the head of her beloved pet cockatiel, Pikachu, who was perched on my shoulder! "Fame" at last for her bird. (I'm glad it's a small photo because I seem to have the world's largest forehead in it. And Dan looks very serious in all the photos, which isn't characteristic; he's usually joking around.)

Here is a link to today's Wisconsin State Journal feature (there are several sidebars, a slideshow with audio, etc, in addition): http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/24/eveningnews/main2510596.shtml

If you missed last night's national news broadcast about FFRF and our case, there is a transcript up at CBS News today (if there's video footage, haven't found it yet): http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/top/index.php?ntid=120508&ntpid=1

The transcript reveals the very nice fact is that the original script gave FFRF the last word. Dan's remarks that we will continue to pursue our challenges in some way or another, despite what the court decides, ended up on the floor of the editing room, but survived the text version. (He watched the news last night in California, and was a good sport and didn't even comment on the fact that his interview was cut when he called me. Actually, our nemesis, Pat Robertson's pitbull Jay Sekulow, got 4 sentences to my 2, in terms of actual interview time. Of course, overall it was very positive coverage.) Thanks, CBS, for at least not planning to give Sekulow the last word!

I'm still hopeful my flight to D.C. tomorrow, with our plans to lobby and to meet with our D.C. attorney on Tuesday, will not be affected by the weather! At least we don't have to be there until 10 a.m. on Wednesday for the oral arguments. My mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, a co-taxpayer plaintiff, will fly in on Tuesday. She's very happy to have found a nonstop flight to DC.

To all the Madisonians reading this, happy shoveling! As Noah liked to say on the Ark, "We're all in the same boat!"


Annie Laurie

I just got home, checked my TiVo & was very pleased by the CBS Evening News story about FFRF and its faith-based case which ran nationally tonight! Yeah - we didn't even get pre-empted by a basketball game.

Best of all, from the point of view of the sponsor of our blog, The Mic 92.1 got some airtime. Our engineer, Owen Murphy, who co-hosts his own sports show, was pictured. The Mic logos which Brian Turany tastefully placed in all the strategic places in our studio worked! They showed up! The news broadcast showed a clip of me at the studio hailing "all your irreverent infidels," and Dan introducing himself as "your friendly neighborhood atheist." Even the front of the building got some PR - we were shown chatting as we left after taping the show. I thought our own office building, Freethought Hall, in Madison, looked very nice, too!

The only downside is that the segment ended with a quote by a representative of Pat Robertson's Christian legal foundation, which works to keep church and state united. I would have expected balance, but wish we could have had the last word! I won't name this individual, but if you heard today's broadcast of our weekly radio show, Freethought Radio, you may already know that we excerpted this theocratic critic ourselves, talking about FFRF and our case on his own radio program. We thought his Christian show was a great advertisement for FFRF and will make listeners smile. If you missed our 1 p.m. broadcast today, the show should be up by Monday afternoon at our website: www.ffrf.org/radio

I'm impressed with CBS' ability to cover so much of the issue so quickly, and loved their choice of footage of Pres. George W. Bush opening one of the many faith-based conferences his faith-based offices sponsor--one of the targets of our lawsuit, and his remarks endorsing public-sponsored faith-based counseling!

(I don't see a quick link to the Feb. 24 CBS Evening News program, but I'm sure find a link by Monday if you missed the coverage. Check out ffrf.org for news coverage and updates about our case.)

I have to say, after meeting with CBS national staff, that I have renewed respect for the sheer labor and long hours that go into TV journalism. As a journalism grad myself, I've personally preferred the print medium as the way to communicate. (As a student, I shyed away from anything more technical than a typewriter.) But I've really enjoyed exploring our modest foray into "mass media" via radio, and more than that of course, the opportunity to preach to the "converted," instead of only reaching those who already agree with us, and to educate generally. Radio is also a very intimate medium (with the great advantage that no one sees you; you don't have to put on your lipstick!).

But after watching Tom, the CBS cameraman who ended up having to also double as soundman, organize and lug his equipment--which would literally fill a small room--I'm super-impressed with what goes into TV journalism. He patiently recorded us for several hours, just to get a few sentences from us and a few cut-aways. And the producer, although she stayed off camera, put in such a long day and had done oodles of homework. She was extremely organized and relayed some fascinating research of her own on this subject.

The response today to the Associated Press story continues in record numbers. Jackie, our office manager, generously came in mid-afternoon on a Saturday no less to get a head start processing the thousands of e-mails we now have. Thanks, Jackie! There were more than 700 e-mails overnight, lots of Paypal memberships and supportive messages, -- so many that our computer temporarily crashed!

I hope the CBS coverage will help get out the word: seculars are at least 16% of the U.S. population, and I think they have reached a point where they recognize it's either speak up now, or lose what is most precious about our country--its freedom of conscience, and freedom from religious coercion via the state. How do we turn our country away from its spiral into democratically-accepted mediocrity, war and religion-based government?

By the way, Dan Barker, my co-host and husband, has not been able to contribute to the blog because he is in California, in a spot where he can get e-mail, but can't send it. However, his speech at the UCLA last Thursday was well-received, and he reported that in the audience was Paul D. Boyer, one of FFRF's Lifetime Members and a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry. He spoke with Paul, who is either in his nineties or close to them,\ about being a guest soon on Freethought Radio. Paul very graciously agreed. Paul is a "devout atheist," raised a Mormon in Provo, Utah who is especially eager to share the good news that most elite scientists are not religious. So look for that upcoming interview in a few weeks!

***

Well, it's time to make a meal and shovel (Dan always seems to be somewhere nice and warm, such as Africa or California, when we get large snowfalls! Anyone reading this out of Madison may not know that we got six and a half very heavy inches last night, will get about that much tonight, for a total accumulation of up to 16 hours by tomorrow night. There is a blizzard advisory out and it's not overstated -- the wind is wicked. But the weather should certainly clear in time for my Monday flight to Washington, D.C. and our legal adventure before the U.S. Supreme Court. Our legal team is prepared, and we're right, so that's a big head start!


Annie Laurie

FFRF's office, as of early Friday afternoon, Feb. 23, is being inundated with literally thousands of e-mails and new memberships! In the last 24 hours we have signed up at least five new Lifetime Members! (And we're still processing many e-mails and Paypal orders.)

Associated Press' story about FFRF and the lawsuit, written by Madison's Ryan Foley, is still running in newspapers around the nation. Yesterday it was published in about 100 venues, including the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Posts. Today it's been picked up in many other major cities, including Seattle and St. Paul. Our office has received even more memberships and inquiries than yesterday.

To thank our small staff for all the extra work, FFRF had a staff lunch today, ordering in from the wonderful Jo's Tazzina in downtown Madison. (If you haven't checked out that coffeeshop, Jo concocts wonderful soups, salads, sandwiches & carries a killer cheesecake.) Thanks, Jackie, Nora, Lynn, Anne (president emerita), and volunteers Jody, Phyllis, and Sandy. Dan, who is in California to speak at the UCLA and at other functions, is missing all the commotion!

This outpouring of support for the separation of church and state & freethought is very exciting. We hope it continues. Back to the mail. . .


Annie Laurie

"Standing" is an esoteric topic which only attorneys can love. But it has very real ramifications to citizens. The government argues that taxpayers do not have the right to challenge Executive actions that violate state/church separation, alleging that Congress did not explicitly authorize that action through earmarked appropriations or by passing legislation. It also claims we would only have the right to sue if the faith-based centers funded religious groups outright, which they do not.

The Administration wants the Court to dramatically restrict the test for getting into Court to challenge Establishment Clause violations.  It seeks to prevent taxpayer challenges to numerous activities that clearly violate the Constitution. Judge Posner, a Republican appointee, wrote the opinion recognizing standing here, based on well settled principles.

If FFRF does not have the right to take this case, nobody does. And that means that no court has the right to scrutinize what Bush has done here -- he would be above the law, above the Constitutional prohibitions against government establishment of religion.


Annie Laurie

The Foundation has taken and won more federal lawsuits against the faith-based initiative than any other civil liberties group. We won the first federal ruling against faith-funding in the nation (Faith Works of Milwaukee, 2002). We also won a landmark decision in which a federal judge revoked ongoing funding of a proselytizing organization, ordering Health & Human Services to halt a grant. We have won five cases, lost two, and have three on-going faith-based lawsuits in federal court (plus an additional case in limbo awaiting action). When many of these faith-based funding cases are brought to the courts, they are ruling them unconstitutional.

The faith-based initiative is like a constitutional hemorrhage, with billions of tax dollars diverted from established, secular agencies to religious groups. We are trying to staunch that flow, by bringing these unconstitutional actions before the courts to review.


Annie Laurie

Dan Barker and I, as co-directors of the Foundation, and my mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, Foundation president emerita, are the taxpayer plaintiffs. The Freedom From Religion Foundation is also a plaintiff representing our nationwide membership.

We're delighted to be represented pro bono (!) by the Yale Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic. That means students helped write parts of the brief, concentrating on the statement of facts . They did a terrific job summarizing the issues and we are looking forward to meeting many of them after the oral arguments.

The brief's primary author is attorney Andrew J. Pincus & associates,  Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, D.C. Andy Pincus will conduct the oral arguments on Wed., Feb. 28. Pincus is in the news for winning a major pro-business decision from the U.S. Supreme Court just this week! His father writes for The Washington Post, and he is a former assistant solicitor general from the Clinton Administration who has argued and won many cases before the high court. (He is also a well-known chocoholic.)

Rich Bolton is our attorney of counsel, Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field, Madison, Wis. Rich is the brilliant mind behind all of our faith-based lawsuits and will be seated with Andy.


Annie Laurie

The many wonderful groups that submitted excellent friend of the court briefs in our favor include the ACLU with Americans United for Separation of Church & State. Their brief tackles the meaty technical issue of "standing." This brief was signed by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Freedom, People for the American Way Foundation, and the Anti-Defamation League.

The Center for Free Inquiry submitted a highly-researched brief documenting the complicity of Congress in knowingly funding these offices, showing how federal agencies included requests for subsidy of faith-based offices in budget requests. There were also strong briefs submitted by the American Jewish Committee/Congress and American Atheists. You can read these briefs online or read more about our lawsuit at:
http://ffrf.org/legal/hein_supremecourt07/

Very heartwarming was the fact that a group of historians and legal scholars were so distressed at the historic inaccuracies in the Bush Administration brief that they got together and commissioned their own friend of the court brief on FFRF's behalf. The list of names includes well-known professors, authors and scholars, some affiliated with Christian universities. We are very grateful for all of our friends.

On the dark side . . . Guess who submitted friend of the court briefs for the government?  EX-Judge Roy Moore, the fanatic who lost his position as Alabama Chief Justice for fighting the court removal of a Ten Commandments monument he unlawfully placed at the Alabama Supreme Court. Pat Robertson's legal arm, the "ACLJ," whose bigoted press releases insist that "atheists have special privileges in federal court." A Christian legal group. And 11 states, 10 of whom signed onto a brief written by the Indiana Attorney General, who clearly believes no citizen has a right to sue the government for endorsing or establishing a religion.

This brief disapproved, for instance, of FFRF's lawsuit overturning Good Friday as a state holiday in Wisconsin. You may recall that Wisconsin state law used to mandate that all citizens had to worship between particular hours on Good Friday - be they Jews, atheists, or Muslims! That was a bad law. We got more complaints about libraries, city hall and other government buildings being closed on Good Friday! Ending this violation was one of our most popular legal victories. The Religious Right wants to take away citizen rights to sue the government over such egregious violations.


Annie Laurie

(*I have to admit that when Annie Laurie and Dan told me they were headed to the SCOTUS the news took some time to sink into my thick skull.  I asked Annie Laurie to post this to help set the tone for case's weight in case you're having trouble putting this into perspective.
-Brian Turany)

Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times described our lawsuit as being one of the bigger and more interesting cases of the session. We agree. :) (Links to some of the press coverage can be found at the top of this blog.)

CBS Evening News came to interview us this week, and filmed the entire prerecording of this week's Freethought Radio, our weekly broadcast on Madison's Progressive Talk the MIC 92.1! That was more than an hour and a half of footage! (I can't imagine the poor CBS staffer who has to look over all that footage to find a few cut-aways!) Owen Murphy, our new engineer who in his other life is a sports host, was a very good sport about this! Brian Turany, our favorite MIC program director, made sure there was a great big  banner in the studio backdrop promoting The MIC. After that filming, our downtown office was turned into a studio. Both the cameraman and producer were very appealing, professional and intelligent, and both endured very long travel days. The story is slated to air on Saturday's national CBS Evening News, barring a golf tournament preempting it!

Ryan Foley's very nice profile about FFRF and our case, which went over the national Associated Press wire on Thursday, Feb. 22, has had electric results. In less than 24 hours, we have had more than 100 people join the Freedom From Religion Foundation outright via Paypal at our website. That is a record! More than 250 other sympathetic individuals contacted us on Thursday to ask how to join FFRF. And that count isn't complete: there were than a 100 e-mails we hadn't had time to open by day's end, with more arriving in our inbox. Copies of our newspaper, Freethought Today, are literally flying out the door. Our very small (4 1/2 person) staff has been pleasantly beiseged! We hope the interest continues. Our goal has been to reach 10,000 members by year's end, but maybe it will be a lot sooner. (We've reached 8,600-plus with today's new members.)

Along with the positive response of course was the nasty response flooding our inboxes. Here's a sample: One "nice" gentleman wrote: "I do hope you all unplug your head from your ass and wipe the **** out of your eyes so you may be able to see with more clarity." This clod, whose signature indicated he works for "Ballistics Research," actually gave me his name. Can you imagine? Most hate mail is anonymous so I guess I have to give him more credit than the cowards who send us obscene or hateful messages.

This Sunday, a piece by hardworking reporter Doug Erickson at the Wisconsin State Journal, is slated to run. This involves an indepth look at the Freedom From Religion Foundation and its history. Doug has been tailing us for more than two months, popping in on sundry afternoons to look over our archives or ask a few questions. He even watched a video of the entire Oprah Winfrey Show where Dan and I first met in 1984. We will miss having him around! He is an extraordinarily conscientious reporter.

There have been lots of other press calls, including from USA Today's legal reporter, and some prospective TV.

***

In terms of how big is this case legally. . . If the Court were to overturn its own precedent on taxpayer challenges of Establishment Clause violations, it would have a chilling effect. But such a radical departure from precedent is not expected. Although the Religious Right is agitating to squelch all state/church lawsuits, the Bush Administration is not asking for the standing precedent to be overturned.  It is arguing that that precedent can stand, just that our case doesn't apply.

We think, based on precedent, that we should win and that it should be unanimous! All we are asking the Court to do is let us try our case on the merits, have our day in court. A win for us would mean that we can finally do that, after three years of waiting.


Annie Laurie

When I walked into our office this morning, I was greeted by the excited report from staffers that our inbox was flooded with requests from would-be supporters around the country. That overwhelming response is the result of an Associated Press article, written by Madison's Associated Press reporter Ryan Foley, which went over the national wire today. (Story appears in tonight's Capital Times: "Freedom From Religion Foundation Gains Clout".) As of 3 p.m. this afternoon, we have signed up at least 100 new members of the Foundation! That's a record for one day! We have taken an additional 250 inquiries for information from other sympathizers, and we still have 100 unopened e-mails to process, with more messages pouring in. (We are also getting the typical nut mail and hate mail smugly informing us we won't meet in heaven, but positive response is far outnumbering negative.) Sample copies of FFRF's newspaper, Freethought Today are  literally flying out the door!

National CBS News Coverage Coming Saturday

Look for a national CBS Evening News segment about the Supreme Court case and FFRF, scheduled to run on Saturday, Feb. 24 (5 or 5:30 p.m. Madison channel 9). Presuming a golf tournament or other sporting event doesn't pre-empt the evening news, that is. Watch to see if footage filmed at Madison's Progressive Talk THE MIC 92.1 survives! Our new engineer Owen Murphy was very accommodating to the hardworking cameraman, Tom, who works for national CBS and drove up from Chicago and filmed the entire segment of Freethought Radio being recorded for this week. Brian Turany made sure a big banner advertising The Mic 92.1 was the backdrop of the studio. Kate, a very lovely producer for CBS News, flew in from Washington, D.C. (her flight first went to Atlanta, then Milwaukee, and she drove into Madison looking tired on Wednesday afternoon). Our office was later transformed into a "studio" for the interview.

Look for Sunday's Wisconsin State Journal Coverage

Reporter Doug Erickson has been "tailing" us for two months, working on an indepth piece on the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and its litigation record. His conscientiously-researched article will appear in Sunday's Wisconsin State Journal (Feb. 25). It's been fun getting a little bit acquainted with Doug. I will miss having him pop into our workplace to go over the Foundation's archives.

Annie Laurie