Source: Kathy Easthagen

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Minnesota sent Hennepin County commissioners a letter criticizing new restrictions the county plans to impose on Occupy Wall Street protesters in downtown Minneapolis, who have set up in Hennepin County Government Plaza since the first week of October.

While the ACLU isn’t representing the protesters, ACLU legal counsel Teresa Nelson asked that the county rescind the conditions on the protest–including new limits on what space protesters can occupy, storage of personal possessions and whether they’ll be allowed to stay outside when the temperature drops–which the county announced earlier this week.

The ACLU of Minnesota said in a press release that restrictions on free speech need to be narrow, definite and objective.

“When a regulatory scheme limits speech in a traditional public forum, the courts take care to ensure that the constitutionally protected expressed activity at issue be protected from government censorship,” Nelson wrote. “Rules such as the new rules that Hennepin County seeks to impose have the effect of subjecting the First Amendment activity to a prior restraint.”

The letter points out that the rules appear to be “ad-hoc” rules that weren’t previously enforced and that are designed to deal with just Occupy MN protesters: ”Because we believe that these new ad-hoc restrictions run afoul of the First Amendment, we request that you revoke your plan to oppose them.”

The letter was sent to Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek, Hennepin County Administrator Richard Johnson, Hennepin County commissioners and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman.
OccupyMNletter11.3.

In the wake of Bradlee Dean‘s controversial prayer before the Minnesota House on Friday, a number of religious and political groups condemned Dean and urged Republican leaders to disavow Dean’s prayer and his association with the House. The Minnesota Catholic Conference, which supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, said that Dean should not be associated with their movement. The ACLU, the DFL, the National Organization for Marriage, Minneapolis Mayor RT Rybak and several legislators all weighed in on the controversy over the weekend.

Supporters of gay marriage ban respond

The Minnesota Catholic Conference, the public policy wing of the Roman Catholic Church, condemned Dean’s prayer. “It was wrong to have a person with extremist views, like those attributed to Dean, deliver the prayer in the House,” said Jason Adkins, the group’s executive director. “Dean disrespectfully turned the prayer into a polemic and his words divided the chamber rather than brought people together.”

Adkins added that just because Dean is anti-gay he shouldn’t be lumped in with those who seek a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

“It was also unfortunate that those who are opposed to a marriage amendment to the Minnesota Constitution used Dean’s remarks to portray supporters as ‘hate groups,’ as well as state falsely that Dean was there on their behalf,” he said. “As Speaker Kurt Zellers said in an apology today, which we welcome, the mistake was due to an internal oversight. Bradlee Dean does not speak for those supporting a marriage amendment in Minnesota.”

The National Organization for Marriage echoed that sentiment on its blog:

“The suggestion of violence (if this account is true) is abhorrent, especially from a man of the cloth. But should the people of Minnesota be deprived of the right to vote because somebody in the state legislature did not vet a so-called pastor?”

The group links to a Star Tribune story which refers to a statement by Dean during his May 15, 2010, radio show.

“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America,” he said. “This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”

ACLU letter

The Minnesota ACLU sent a letter on Friday afternoon to leaders in both the House and Senate urging them to refrain from prayers when those chambers are in session.

“The Minnesota Legislature is designed to represent all Minnesota residents, regardless of faith,” said Charles Samuelson of the Minnesota ACLU. “While we applaud Representative Zellers for his apology, we urge you to refrain from opening future sessions with any type of prayer, so as to ensure that religious freedom is protected for all.”

“Any reasonable observer,” the ACLU letter said (PDF), “would have understood that Bradlee Dean’s prayer – featuring multiple references to ‘Jesus’ – promoted Christianity.”

Politicians speak out

And Mayor Rybak weighed in in a video interview with Capitol Conversations: “To actually invite a minister that talked the jailing of [LGBT] people to give the invocation on the floor of the Minnesota Capitol, I don’t understand that.”

Rep. Jeff Hayden, DFL-Minneapolis, sent an email to constituents condemning Dean.

“The emotions on this issue ran hot this morning when GOP legislators invited Bradlee Dean to deliver the opening prayer,” he wrote. “In case you are unfamiliar with Bradlee Dean, he is a hateful ‘preacher’ who has proclaimed that gays belong in jail and that he would ‘approve the death penalty for gays.’ His mere presence was insulting, but his ‘prayer’ was offensive as well.”

He continued, “I was very upset this kind of speech would be allowed inside the House chamber – or any place. Whether it is African Americans, women or the LGBT community, Republicans have sought policies that divide us, singling out minority communities for harsh treatment.”

DFL chair Ken Martin sent an email to party activists about Dean.

“Today, the Republican majority in the Minnesota House of Representatives invited Bradlee Dean, a controversial Reverend who has essentially advocated for the execution of homosexuals, to deliver the opening prayer for the chamber,” said Martin. “Governor Dayton said it best in response – there is no place for hate in Minnesota and especially not on the House or Senate floor.”

He added, “The fact that this man, who advocates for violence against gay people, was welcomed by the GOP onto the House floor with open arms is just abominable.”

As the Minnesota Independent has reported, Dean has long-running ties with Minnesota Republicans. Politicians, including U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, have been part of fundraisers for Dean’s You Can Run But You Cannot Hide; Emmer’s former House campaign donated to the group; and prominent Republicans, including Dan Severson (who recently announced he’ll be running against Amy Klobuchar for Senate) and state Sen. Paul Gazelka, have been guests on his weekly radio show.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is demanding that the Northfield School District stop filtering LGBT internet content on the district’s computers. Calling it unconstitutional, the group sent a letter to the district calling for a halt to the filtering as well as a data practices request to identify how the filters got put into place. The move is part of the ACLU’s broader “Don’t Filter Me” project to prevent filtering of LGBT content.

”LGBT youth face a lot of challenges growing up in today’s society. The websites that are being filtered by Northfield are important resources for LGBT teens to go to for support and help, it is unfortunate that they would block these sites,” said ACLU-MN attorney Teresa Nelson in a statement.

The ACLU received a tip from Northfield students that the computers were filtering LGBT resources. Northfield uses a software called Lightspeed which contains a filter called “education.lifestyles” defined as “Education about lifestyles — gay, lesbian, alternate.”

Already the campaign has been successful in getting those filters removed from a Kansas City school district, and the ACLU has identified filters in Virginia, Ohio and New Jersey.

“There is no legitimate reason why any public school should be using an anti-LGBT filter,” Joshua Block of the ACLU LGBT Project said. “This is not a case where overbroad filters are accidentally filtering out LGBT websites. These filters are designed to discriminate and are programmed specifically to target LGBT-related content that would not otherwise be blocked as sexually explicit or inappropriate. Public schools have a duty to provide students with viewpoint-neutral access to the Internet.”

Last week’s House Judiciary Policy and Finance hearing on a bill that would ban taxpayer funding for abortion erupted into anger when Republican Rep. Tony Cornish of Good Thunder called a poem read by a United Church of Christ pastor “disgusting,” a term he also used for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Rev. T. Michael Rock of Robbinsdale United Church of Christ read a poem called “No Small Thing,” which relayed the perspectives of a fetus, a woman and God in the difficult choice about whether to terminate a pregnancy. The poem spoke of a sac of limbs, referring to the fetus and the amniotic sac.

Rep. Tony Cornish (R)

“I’ve got to count to ten before I give my comment,” Cornish angrily told the committee. To Rev. Rock, he said, “I find your testimony particularly disgusting, to invoke the Lord’s word in support of abortion. That bag of limbs and bones you describe could be found outside an abortion clinic, sucked out of a mother’s womb.”

Minnesota ACLU head Chuck Samuelson testified before Rev. Rock spoke, stating that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that it is unconstitutional to deny women abortion services if the state also provides pregnancy services.

Cornish didn’t like that testimony either: “And I find the ACLU just about as disgusting. You attack peoples’ liberties more than you defend them in the cases I’ve seen this year.”

He added, “It’s unbelievable about invoking the Lord’s word. I wouldn’t do that in opposition to abortion, to bring the Lord’s word into this. Ew.”

But Cornish has come close. During the debate last year on whether to override Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto of cuts to health insurance for low-income Minnesotans, the DFL used religious arguments to defend the poor.

To that, Cornish said, “It gives me a tough feeling when you and your members mention God in the debate here and then trot out your Bible whenever it’s convenient. I urge you to trot that Bible out again when we talk about abortion. I urge you to trot that Bible out again when we talk about gay rights and what Christians feel about that, some Christians. Don’t do it just when it’s convenient and try to make us feel guilty.”

Hamline Prof. David Schultz said that Cornish’s words are par for the course in today’s political environment.

“We are at a point where each side demonizes the other, accusing its opponent as evil, calculating, as some type of low-life,” he wrote. “We make the other party or other side the enemy, and the purpose of doing that is to motivate the base. Make the battle one of good versus evil.”

He added, “This is what Tony Cornish did. The abortion hearing was televised and supporters of his position were in the audience. It was good copy to call names and demonize the opponents. I bet he runs the tape on You-Tube and for his next election. Again, it was a Jerry Springer moment.”

Official flag of Arizona

The ACLU of Minnesota issued a travel alert Wednesday for Minnesotans planning to travel to Arizona over the July 4 weekend. It issued the advisory in response to Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, which directs police to check citizenship papers of individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. The ACLU has drafted “know you rights” materials in English and Spanish, which it is making available free to state residents.

“If Minnesotans are planning to travel to Arizona for the holiday weekend, they need to know their rights,” Charles Samuelson, executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota said in a statement. “In Arizona, officials are not waiting for the new law to take effect to start questioning people about their immigration status. People who look or sound ‘foreign’ are more likely to be stopped for minor infractions like having a broken taillight or jaywalking and then asked for their ‘papers’ if police think that they could be in the country unlawfully.”

The new law, which takes effect July 29, prompted a similar alert on the other side of the border. In late April, Mexico’s ambassador to the U.S., Arturo Sarukhan, issued an advisory warning its citizens against travel to Arizona.

Sen. Patrick Leahy. Photo: WDCpix

Republicans and Democrats have been sniping about the USA Patriot Act ever since Congress passed the law in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks to try to forestall another such disaster. But now, it’s the Democrats who are sniping among themselves about it. While some lawmakers, like Sens. Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin, have insisted that Congress must amend the law to rein in the FBI’s powers to snoop into innocent private activities, other Democratic lawmakers, such as Senators Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy, have resisted significant reforms.

Three provisions of the law will expire by the end of this year if they’re not renewed, and have been the subject of recent hearings. Those are: the “roving wiretap” provision, which allows the government to tap  phones and other electronic devices used by any person suspected of involvement in terrorism; section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to obtain a broad range of business records and other tangible things, including library records, subscription information and credit card statements, so long as the FBI shows these are “relevant” to some terrorist investigation; and the so-called “lone wolf” provision, which allows the government to wiretap any suspect believed to be involved in terrorism, even if that person has no connection to any known terrorist organization.

The other controversial provisions include the FBI’s authority to issue National Security Letters, or NSLs, which seek a broad range of information from businesses about their customers but do not require a warrant or any other court order; and the “sneak and peak law”, which allows the FBI to search a suspect’s home without informing the target that they’ve been searched.

Civil liberties advocates insist these provisions are all too broad as currently written, and allow the FBI to abuse its authority to conduct wide-scale “data mining” of the general population, searching innocent people’s records and personal information while the government tries to root out wrongdoing. Because in many cases it’s not clear how the government is using its broad authority and who gets access to the information, privacy advocates worry that the government could retain such information and use it in ways unconnected to terrorism investigations.

A 2007 report from the FBI Inspector General concluded that the FBI had issued almost 150,000 NSL requests between 2003 and 2005, often collecting information about people not even suspected of having done anything illegal. The Inspector General also found that the FBI’s record-keeping was so poor that it often didn’t know how many letters it has issued, and requested information it wasn’t entitled to receive.

Advocates worry that many sections of the Patriot Act allow similar abuses. “The concern is that the changes the Patriot Act made were such that so long as the FBI agent certifies that the information they’re seeking is relevant to a terror investigation, they can get it,” explained Farhana Khera, Executive Director of Muslim Advocates, which recently sued the government for more information about FBI surveillance practices. “We argue that’s way too broad. It should be tied to a suspected terrorist or terrorist activity.” The FBI’s current authority “has unleashed concerns about the FBI getting access to data on literally millions and millions of Americans,” she said.

Advocates for Muslim-Americans also worry that the laws are being used to target and harass law-abiding American muslims, landing them on no-fly lists, preventing them from getting hired for federal jobs, or deterring them from contributing to legal charitable organizations that assist needy Muslims in other countries.

To address these problems, in mid-September, Feingold and Durbin, both of whom have long expressed concerns about the Patriot Act, introduced the JUSTICE Act (Judiciously Using Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts), which would renew section 215 and the roving wiretap provisions, but would require the government to provide more justification for using them, and to specify more clearly the targets of their investigation.

The bill would also rein in the FBI’s authority to issue National Security Letters by requiring the government to specify what it’s looking for and how the information is relevant to an ongoing national security investigation. Meanwhile, it would repeal the part of the FISA Amendments Act that immunized telecommunications companies such as AT&T that assisted the government in its warrantless wiretapping program.

But a week later, to the dismay of many civil libertarians, Sen. Leahy introduced the USA Patriot and Sunset Extension Act. Cosponsored by Sens. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), it would extend the expiring provisions with only minor modifications, and would leave the “lone wolf” and “roving wiretap” provisions intact. It also would not include any reforms to the FISA Amendments Act.

By the time of the Senate markup session last week, Sen. Leahy, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, had produced a substitute version of his bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Intelligence subcommittee. This bill became the basis for the markup, effectively destroying the chances for adoption of the JUSTICE bill, although pieces of it could still be introduced as amendments.

Civil liberties advocates quickly expressed their disappointment. The American Civil Liberties Union called it “a watered-down version” of the original Leahy bill. Kevin Bankston of Electronic Frontier Foundation similarly described it as having “even fewer PATRIOT reforms than the original Leahy bill.”  Although Feingold and Durbin offered amendments, the only one that succeeded was one amending the “sneak and peak” provision. The amendment would require the government to notify the subject of a search within seven days, instead of 30, as the law stands now. An amendment offered by Senator Durbin to narrow the broad Section 215 powers, which now allows the government to gain access to “any tangible thing,” failed.

Even Sen. Al Franken, who at the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing took the time to read the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to Justice Department official David Kris, voted to support the Leahy-Feinstein substitute bill, and against the Durbin and Feingold amendments.

Feingold has repeatedly expressed concern that the government is not providing enough information for the public to know how the Patriot Act is being used.

“I remain concerned that critical information about the implementation of the Patriot Act remains classified,” said Feingold at a recent hearing, noting that he believes that much of that classified information “would have a significant impact on the debate.” Although the Justice Department recently acknowledged that the “lone wolf” authority has never been used, said Feingold, “there also is information about the use of Section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know.”

Some representatives in the House, where they’re also debating changes to the Patriot Act and will eventually put forward their own bill, feel the same way. Earlier this week, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for more information about how Section 215 orders have been used to help inform the House debate. (Eventually, the House and Senate bills to amend the Patriot Act will have to be reconciled before they go to the President for his signature.)

Although Feinstein has cited classified information as her reason for supporting the re-authorization of section 215 as is, Feingold disagrees. The Feingold amendment would have limited what kinds of records could be obtained under section 215, and required that the government show that those records are related either to terrorist activities, or to people in contact with a terrorist.

Interestingly, notes Michelle Richardson, legislative consultant to the ACLU, during the Patriot Act reauthorization process in 2005, “Democrats and Republicans supported amendments to section 215 to limit it to terrorist activities,” she said. “But now they don’t.”

The problem with reauthorizing many of these provisions, says Richardson, is that “we don’t know what information they’re getting, how much, and who has access,” she said. “But we believe that anytime you get the information, it’s a violation. These are principles over 200 years old in this country, that government should not be getting this information about you unless they have reason to believe you’ve done something wrong.”

That principle is increasingly being discarded. Attorney General Guidelines issued at the end of the Bush administration, for example, eliminated the requirement that the FBI must have reason to believe the target of an investigation has committed a crime before initiating that investigation.

“Who knows if the information comes back to haunt you,” said Richardson. “If you apply for federal student aid, for a federal job, or end up on a no-fly list. We don’t know who has access to the information, and where it’s supposed to go. That’s not how things are supposed to work in this country.”

On Thursday, the markup session will continue in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as specifics on the bill get hammered out. Much of the critical information necessary to determine how it’s working, though, will remain secret.

Minnesota Teen Challenge's headquarters in Minneapolis' Elliot Park neighborhood. Photo: Andy Birkey, Minnesota Independent

A former crack user says she kicked her addiction because she found Jesus at Minnesota Teen Challenge. A man says that God healed his liver after a prayer service at the Christian drug treatment facility. While its clients sing its praises — some claiming it saved their lives — should such an overtly religious program be receiving taxpayer funding? According to state records, MNTC has gotten more than $2 million from the state of Minnesota in order to run its faith-based chemical dependency treatment centers.

The overtly evangelical nature of the program raises questions about the constitutionality of the large amount of state money flowing into the program. Teen Challenge has received $2,388,947 in state funding since 2007, mainly from the Minnesota Department of Human Services, according to the state’s new Transparency and Accountability Project website.

Teen Challenge has been in the spotlight recently because of concerns about the separation of church and state — and, specifically, the program’s receipt of federal funding. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in June requesting the department halt federal grants to Teen Challenge.

“In providing these grants, the U.S. Department of Justice is unconstitutionally aiding religion,” the complaint read.

But while much attention has been paid to the program’s federal funding, its receipt of state funds has largely flown under the radar.

Chuck Samuelson of the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said the program has the appearance of running afoul of the constitutional principle of church-state separation. “Everything they talk about is about God in relation to the program,” he said. “That’s a lot of [state] money.”

Samuelson said ACLU-MN has been looking into the drug treatment center, but it’s difficult to prove whether Teen Challenge is misusing state dollars.

“We don’t have data that is supportable in a court of law,” he said. “What we don’t have is anybody with direct knowledge of the program to come forward.”

Eric Vagle, Teen Challenge’s communications director, acknowledges the religious nature of the treatment centers but says state money is kept separate from evangelical programming.

“The program services that are funded through the government are non-religious in nature, and while we do offer religious programming, it is not funded by government dollars and clients voluntarily choose to participate,” he said.

“It is important to note that a number of studies suggest that spirituality can play an important part of the recovery process for many people, and therefore most treatment programs have some sort of spirituality component to them.”

Alex Luchenitser, senior litigation counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, sees the program differently.

“Teen Challenge is a program that should not be receiving state money,” he said. “It requires people who participate to convert to Christianity.”

Luchenitser says that the constitutionality of the program depends on the payment process through the state. He noted that court decisions have made voucher payments — state money given directly to the client to choose a treatment service — legal. Minnesota doesn’t use the voucher system and instead reimburses counties that pay Teen Challenge in a fee-for-service system. The state mechanism for that system is the Consolidated Chemical Dependency Treatment Fund (CCDTF).

State authorities conducted an analysis of CCDTF (pdf) in 2006, which described the payment structure:

The payment system is on a fee-for-service basis, but counties, within state-wide guidelines, determine which clients need treatment, and which provider will serve the client. Two thirds of all CCDTF admissions were referred by government social service and criminal justice agencies.

The report acknowledged that the county authorities who choose the treatment centers to provide services aren’t always looking at federal standards for treatment programs. Therefore, faith-based programs, such as Teen Challenge, don’t get carefully vetted.

County monitoring does not assure that certain Federal requirements regarding spending practices are met, and whether performance is adequately monitored. With the CCDTF accounting for 45% of the treatment market share, the county contract can be a powerful tool for change regarding providers that have not yet linked the most modern science to their program design and operation.

Because Teen Challenge is licensed by the state — and has been since 2001 — and is listed as a service provider for Hennepin County, the treatment center will continue to receive state funds in the future.

God is Teen Challenge’s treatment strategy

While MNTC’s Vagle says state funds don’t go to evangelical programming, most of the language about the program — coming from its managers, Web site and clients — references the transformational power of Jesus Christ, as opposed to chemical health and behavior therapy. A glowing review of the program by the Alexandria Echo Press tells of Carlos, Minn., resident Nikol Foss, who sought treatment for crack addiction. Her probation officer recommended Minnesota Teen Challenge, but she rejected the suggestion, saying she wanted nothing to do with a Christian drug program. She eventually relented and signed up.

“I was going to be tough,” she told the paper. “I wasn’t going to let Jesus into my life, but I’d take the treatment.”

But it didn’t work out that way. “I decided that if I accepted Jesus, it was going to be better, so I accepted Jesus,” she said. “I was happy immediately.”

Pastor Rich Scherber, executive director of the program, used similar language when he took Minnesota Teen Challenge’s message of healing to the Minnesota State Fair this summer. During a live show there by Christian talk radio station KKMS, he spoke of the “perfect storm” last fall when the economic recession reduced donations and a scandal involving Tom Petters wiped out a foundation that supported a large chunk of Teen Challenge’s programs.

“God has helped us. I mean, we are operating in the black, not in the red,” he said. “That’s what Teen Challenge is all about. God is working miracles at Teen Challenge.”

Scherber said that Christian teaching is one of two keys to Teen Challenge’s success: “Number one, the Christian approach,” he told KKMS listeners. “That’s by far… The Bible says that any man that be in praise, he’s a new creation, old things are passed away, behold all things are become new.” The other key Scherber says is the fact that the residential treatment lasts longer than the typical 28-day program.

Scherber brought a number of current and former clients on the KKMS show to tell their stories of transformation through Jesus Christ.

Jim, who had a history of abusing alcohol, heroin and pain killers, said, “We have healing [prayer] services at Teen Challenge and God healed my liver.”

“He came into Teen Challenge and God healed his liver,” said Scherber. “What the doctors have said is that he is a walking miracle.”

The KKMS host chimed in to say, “God has blessed the socks off this guy!”

Heidi, a current client at Teen Challenge, also claimed that finding God at Teen Challenge helped her kick a cocaine and heroin addiction. “I was at a low point… and ended up going to a secular drug treatment program,” she said. “When I came out I started using again. It didn’t do what Teen Challenge did for me.”

She continued, “I know now that it’s for [sic] this time, this time that I’m at Teen Challenge. I’m learning about God, I’m learning about Jesus.”

“I know that I have victory in Christ. Thanks to Teen Challenge I’ve been learning about God,” she said.

Virtually every testimonial on the program’s Web site by current and former clients of Teen Challenge say they kicked their addictions because of God, and a number say they converted to Christianity while in the program. For example, “Craig,” a current Teen Challenge client, said, “When the [District Attorney] recommended Teen Challenge, he told the judge he was tired of sending me to jail, because I came out worse every time. But Teen Challenge isn’t just a drug program. It’s a discipleship program. Because of Christ, I have new heart… and I don’t ever want to hurt people again.”

Directors and staff members aren’t shy about calling the program a ministry. Kirk Noonan, news editor of the Pentecostal Evangel, the official publication of the Assemblies of God, spent a weekend at Minnesota Teen Challenge in November 2007 and described the religious curriculum of the program (PDF).

In the television room we gather for the nightly devotion, which is part pep talk, part town hall meeting. With Bibles in hand we hear a devotion. This is perhaps one of the most important routines the residents are developing. “Staying in the Word will keep you grounded,” a staff member tells us. “Having a daily devotion is critical to your success both in here and after you graduate.”

Noonan writes that every Sunday, Teen Challenge clients sing in the Minnesota Teen Challenge choir. They are required to, since “every resident is a member.”

“The choir’s chief purpose is to share the ministry of Teen Challenge and gain support for the program,” Scherber told Noonan. “When we go out and sing, people see good fruit and they want to invest in this ministry. Nearly 85 percent of our budget is raised by the choir.”

The choir’s music is overtly Christian with a style that “varies greatly, ranging from contemporary gospel songs such as, ‘This is How it Feels to Be Free,’ to worshipful hymns like, ‘I Was Made to Worship You.’”

“We license faith-based organizations all the time”

The state did not respond to the Minnesota Independent’s requests for details about how taxpayer money is being spent by Teen Challenge and how the state vets and licenses chemical dependency programs.

But, in 2004, state officials talked to the Star Tribune for its coverage of President Bush’s faith-based initiatives and his push for charitable-choice initiatives, including Teen Challenge.

“We license faith-based organizations all the time,” Donald Eubanks, director of chemical health for the state Department of Human Services at the time, told the paper. “We do not dictate treatment philosophy at all. We make sure that when people choose that form of treatment that they are aware of what they are getting.”

“Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this displays a trend and a tendency that we are seeing where groups like the ACLU strike at one school district after another, one public display of religious expression after another, until they have reached their ultimate goal, which is to purge the marketplace of ideas of any semblance of religious expression,” Bachmann said.

Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., brought a letter forward in the House signed by 60 members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, including Bachmann, supporting Pace High School principal Frank Lay and athletic director Robert Freeman.

If such squelching of religious speech comes to pass, Bachmann said in her floor speech (video below), “we will have turned the First Amendment on its head, and the Founders in turn will be rolling in their graves. I thank Mr. Forbes for bringing this to the attention of this body, and I share his shock, I share his dismay that criminal charges were brought on behalf of … Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman for the simple act of engaging in prayer.”

Except it wasn’t such a simple act. The school was already in hot water because employees were openly evangelizing to the students.

“The defendants all admitted wrongdoing,” said Daniel Mach of the ACLU, which had filed a complaint against the school. “For example, the Pace High School teachers handbook asks teachers to ‘embrace every opportunity to inculcate, by precept and example, the practice of every Christian virtue.’ ”

“There were some of the most egregious First Amendment violations you’ll see,” ACLU spokeman Will Matthews, told USA Today.

The case was settled out of court in January when the school agreed to a court order barring religious worship at school-sponsored events. But just days after the settlement, the ACLU charges, Lay asked for a prayer over food at a school event during school hours, allegedly in violation that agreement. The school says no students were present. The ACLU says they were.

If the court rules against the school employees, they face up to 6 months in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Video of Bachmann’s statement:

Full text of Bachmann’s statement:

Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, prayer has been an important part of our country since the founding of our great Nation, and attempts to take prayer away from the American people are attempts to take away the essential freedoms that have been guaranteed to every American since the beginning of our United States Constitution.

I thank Mr. Forbes for bringing this to the attention of this body, and I share his shock, I share his dismay that criminal charges were brought on behalf of Mrs. Winkler, Mr. Lay and Mr. Freeman for the simple act of engaging in prayer.

As the court explained in Santa Fe, not all religious speech that occurs in public schools or at school-sponsored events is speech attributable to government. There were no students present at either event.

Additionally, the court held the proposition that schools do not endorse everything they fail to sensor is not complicated. The Supreme Court held that “there is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the establishment clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the free speech and free exercise clauses protect.”

In no way were these individuals trying to associate the school with prayer. They were offering the prayer, one at a privately funded event, the other at an event with private donors. The court held that “private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the free speech clause as secular private expression.”

Teachers and administrators, when they act in their official capacity, may not encourage or discourage or participate in prayer with students. However, teachers may take part in religious activities before or after school or during lunch since the context makes clear they are not acting in an official capacity. Although schools may not direct or endorse religious activities, students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that this displays a trend and a tendency that we are seeing where groups like the ACLU strike at one school district after another, one public display of religious expression after another, until they have reached their ultimate goal, which is to purge the marketplace of ideas of any semblance of religious expression. At that point, Mr. Speaker, we will have turned the First Amendment on its head, and the Founders in turn will be rolling in their graves.

At the end of this last legislative session, Pawlenty demanded his Democrat-controlled legislature balance the budget or he would. Not only had Democrats passed budget bills that left a $3 billion gap in income and expenditures, but they wanted to increase taxes on their fellow Minnesotans on everything from alcohol and music downloads, including income taxes for every bracket.Pawlenty outwitted his big-spending legislators and exercised an obscure law on the books that enabled him to remove any state spending for which funding doesn’t exist. In Pawlenty’s last major achievement as governor, he balanced the budget and finally removed Minnesota from the dreaded list of top ten most highly-taxed states. Talk about going out with a bang.

Unallotment — Pawlenty’s unilateral slashing of expenses without input of the full legislature — also gets the guv praise south of the border. Quoted in the Iowa alt-weekly CityView, Linn County Republican Party chair Tim Palmer considers Pawlenty a darkhorse: “He’s a neighboring governor who just pulled off what many call a ‘budget miracle’ in his home state and is leaving on a high note.”

But here in Minnesota, some are less enamored of unallotment. At least two groups are considering court challenges of Pawlenty’s authority to make the sweeping cuts. The state chapter of the ACLU is considering a suit over the elimination of Minnesota’s political contribution refund program and the scrapping of the General Assistance Medical program for poor, single adults. And, as Paul Demko reported here last month, Common Cause will definitely be suing over unallotment. In a filing in the next few weeks, the nonprofit plans to question Pawlenty’s constitutional authority to use the unallotment powers so broadly and challenge whether he can defund programs that are enshrined in state law.

Lawyers for TIZA, Islamic Relief, and the education commissioner argued that ACLU-MN did not have the standing to sue, but U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank sided with ACLU-MN.

“[T]he challenged funding here is to a single charter school which, by the admission of Defendants, is attended by choice largely by Somali students who practice the Islamic Religion,” read the order on the motion to dismiss (pdf). “It seems unlikely that a parent or student of TIZA, who presumably attends the school because of its particularized program, would challenge the program of choice.”

The judge said that because ACLU-MN members are taxpayers, they have a stake in what happens to the funds given to TIZA.

“We are grateful that the judge held that we have standing in this case,” Chuck Samuelson, executive director of ACLU-MN, said Tuesday in a statement (pdf). “We believe that it is important to ensure that taxpayer funds are used appropriately. TIZA has received millions of dollars of taxpayer funds and we have the right to question how these public funds are being used.”