We are well aware that we must obey the laws of the country even if we think some are unnecessary and even silly. We also know we must accept interpretations of the law and provisions of our constitutions, state and federal. We also must obey local ordinances, often well meaning but off the necessary mark.
Franklin County and our presiding commissioner, John Griesheimer, have been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and a county woman who doesn’t have the guts to permit her name to be made public, over some prayers said before the meetings. Think of that! Griesheimer is trying to be a missionary and spread his religion over the populace!
Do we have permission to pray for protection from this religious prophet! We looked to no avail to find the Griesheimer Church.
We would like to know the number of converts Griesheimer racked up in his religious zeal. Of course, there is no number. His prayers were not intended to recruit people for his religion. The prayers were well intended and in this view hardly offensive. But remember, we must guard against a county official violating the constitutional provision to protect us from a state religion being imposed on us. And always standing ready to protect us is the ACLU.
The idea that Griesheimer was trying to promote a county religion is so far-fetched that it’s insulting to most of us. We are growing very tired of a single person, or a small minority, forcing their interpretations of law on the majority. Unfortunately, some judges agree with them. The vocal minority gets its way too often from liberal judges, whose interpretations are such a stretch of the law that they compare in altitude to the height of the St. Louis Arch.
A federal judge denied motions by Franklin County to dismiss this ridiculous lawsuit that has attacked the prayers said before some meetings. The plaintiffs allege the prayers violated the First and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and affiliated “Franklin County with one specific faith or belief.” And, in one of the prayers, Jesus was mentioned. In another constitutional stretch, that’s a no-no.
The top coating of this silliness cake is that the plaintiff was “an offended observer” and experienced “psychological unease” because of Griesheimer’s prayers. Talk about combat wounds, mental that is, for being under Griesheimer’s prayer fire! Perhaps there’s some federal aid available to counsel the “psychological unease” that Griesheimer inflicted on this poor person, who we assume now is mentally disadvantaged.
To think that our taxpayer money has to be spent on courthouse staff and judges’ time in dealing with such nonsense is putting this columnist in a “psychological unease” position.