Providence Verified Pt. VI - A New Community

It was decided then. After two weeks at Biola, the additional unexpected costs would be worth it. The descending digits in my bank account were worth the experience and education I would recieve here. Once settled, I knew it was imperative to find community in a local church. Because of my time Jessup I was already familiar with the intentional posture necessary to build community on campus when one does not reside on campus. Even then, community is not an overnight thing, it takes time. I found myself in a new community, new school, with little to know contacts in the area, but I was certain God brought me here for his purpose.

The first semester was a struggle. Unlike Jessup, Biola had a much smaller veteran population and a near non-existent veteran community on campus. That veteran community at Jessup was instrumental to my reintegration into society following Afghanistan. I recall reading one article that expressed the type of sentiments veterans have amidst their younger academic peers. In that particular article, a veteran described how his classmates were homesick after the first month of class, he on the other hand had spent over a year in combat in Iraq prior to being discharged and going to college. The lack of common ground and unparalleled life experiences within only a few years often feels like an ocean apart. I empathized with that veteran but was entirely grateful for having a band of brothers to guide me back to civilization. When I left Jessup, I also left them. There were an equal number of veterans at Jessup as Biola, but Biola’s undergraduate population was over 7x that of Jessup. The community I enjoyed did not and could not exist at Biola.

There were some clear practical reasons why so few veterans attend Biola. Between the Code of Conduct and the out of pocket expense in addition to Post 9/11 GI Bill, only the most motivated individual would consider Biola over other Christian schools like Azusa Pacific or California Baptist which did not have as strict code and came with no out of pocket expense. At the same time, as much as I love Biola, whenever I encounter potential students I make certain that they consider the costs. In many ways the consideration one makes to select a college should be similar to the considerations before one joins the military. Both experiences provide wide ranges of opportunity but can also carry considerable consequences.

I found a new church home in for a lack of cliche’ reasons at this point, providential manner. When I moved down south, I knew I had to find a local church to be a part of. I attended a large church with one of my housemates and it had all the flash and dazzle of a megachurch, I just sensed among the sea of congregants a long path to building relationships. The second week, I went to this church I heard about from Hume, which was where my theology professor taught. I knew from the moment I walked in that I was supposed to be there. The opening worship song was To God Be The Glory, a song I probably had not heard nor sung in over a decade. This was the song Dad, brother, and I sang every morning as he drove us to school. I was at home.

In the most immediate fashions, God brought me to Southern California, confirmed the school I was to attend, and even got me into the classes that I would enjoy. By then I thought God’s clear guiding hand on me was for the most part finished for a good bit of time. I was checking the formal education box in order to meet the qualifications to be a High School Social Science teacher. Little did I know where I would find myself after graduation to the present stage which I work.

Adventures in Security: 0 Days Without an Incident

My streak is over. I have been working security at a nearby ritzy venue for almost a year. Over the course of that time, I have somewhat proudly noted that every real fight or altercation we have encountered I have been absent. I would insinuate my particular demeanor was more comforting and successful to de-escalate situations instead of allowing disagreements to turn to fights. It is worth mentioning the pedigree of the venue is far from the typical dive bar. We are not some ragtag tight polo shirt wearing element. We are in suits minus the tie, if you can peg a man by his dress then we are certainly a professional team. A rough approximation would say there are only events which require our intervention once a month. A typical night is filled with checking IDs, assisting bussers with broken glasses, and clearing the venue at closing time. As with most security, our primary purpose is fulfilled in our mere presence. I should probably note that of the three nights a week which our security team is present, I usually only work one of those.

Although I have an older brother, throughout our childhood we never really fought. Dad ensured no such hijinks would be permitted and it worked. We were never taught to back down from any hostile acts but nor were we taught to go looking for trouble. Because my investigation in Complementarian theology followed my service in the Army, I am not inclined to think the “protective desire” was something from my theological convictions. I do not know. We can chalk it up as a social construct which much of my generation has embraced.

Anyways, Saturday night was a learning experience. Not only did I get to assist with an escort following an altercation, as that one was settling I was the lead guard who broke up another fight. Adrenaline flowing in all, the true question of fight or flight was answered in the heat of the moment. It should be noted, that we do not fight patrons… well, I do not fight patrons. When two people are not playing nice with each other, the best resolution is to separate them. It is not worth the time or effort to figure out who was in the right or wrong until the altercation is ceased. We ascertain the details and responsibilities of the event following a successful ceasing of the fight itself. My job is to get between two people fighting and separate them. Not only was that night a first, which I finally got to be the first person on scene, it was the first time I was really punched in the face. I am quite certain had it not been for a broken nose my junior year of highschool, I would certainly have bled after that strike, thanks for that Dave :D.

Once the sting of the facial numbness streaked across my face and the fight was stopped I almost instantly thought about a quote from Muhammad Ali a friend has often quoted to me. “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.” Of course, my friend has always used that phrase more for its metaphorical purpose, but this weekend it was rather literal. Until one is presented with an actual situation where tempers are flaring, danger and fear were present, we can only hope to do the right thing given sufficient mental preparation and/or physical training. Due to my lack of direct experience, I have not had much opportunity to hone my hand-to-hand combat skills. I can generally use my size and strength enough to mitigate my lack of technique, but even then, until this weekend all such mental simulations remained only in theory.

Now I know. I can take a real hit to the face. Aside from the crash against my skull, and slight numbness, I did not falter. I continued pulling the patrons off of one another and once the two were separated the altercation was finished. In the aftermath I was reminded of the temperament of my colleagues. The would undoubtedly disagree with my findings in Babysitting and Bouncing.

I was also able to take a few minutes to reflect upon the numerous types of security I have been involved. From time as a soldier, to a summer camp security guard, to a bouncer. Each capacity has honed the desire to protect into an ability to do so. I am also reminded of the repeated instruction in Army Combatives training. Our instructors repeatedly stated “We are only teaching you just enough to get your ___ beat.” It was a rather simple block of instruction but they were certain that we did not act too empowered by our basic combative skills test. If I recall right, on one of my sparring opportunities I dived head-first into a guillotine choke hold. Oh the joys of youth and vigor.

I returned from Hume on Friday, after a two-week visit. I truly love Hume and the people up there. This summer is far different from how I imagined it even two months before. It has required a type of waiting that has not been required since my exit from the Army. I had no idea what I would be doing this summer as it began and as the weeks passed hopes were dashed and opportunities unveiled. These revelations remind and reassure me that I am supposed to be exactly where I am. God has been guiding these steps far longer than I have been aware enough to recognize their destination. My adventures for this summer are far from over. Although the desired accomplishments are somewhat lacking, the thankfulness for being about to return to Hume, more than statisfy.

Gunpocalypse 2016: Results Are Not Good

We have the final word on “Gunpocalypse” 2016. From the original post the list expanded and contracted. 11 Bills made it through the Assembly and Senate to Governor Brown’s desk. He signed 6 into law and vetoed 5. This will try to address what will happen and how one might comply with these onerous laws. With the passage of these laws California easily jumps to the lead as being the most restrictive state in the nation concerning gun laws. It might say something that the official website of the press release of the list of signed and vetoed bills was crashed for some time. If you want a better explanation of each bill, see the original post.

The New Laws

1. SB 880 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. The bittersweet relationship the California gun owner had with the “bullet button” is coming to a close. The legislature sought to ban semiautomatic sporting rifles and capitalism responded with ingenuity only a few years later. The previous fix was a setup that required one to open the upper receiver to load cartridges into an internal fixed magazine. Much in the same way one would load a bolt-action Remington 700.
2. Fear not, innovators have already forecasted the lack of restraint the leadership in California would exercise and created this feature which complies with the new law’s text.
3. It might be worth noting that universal firearm registration did not go into effect until January 1, 2014. Any home-build long gun and long gun not voluntarily registered prior to 2014, California has no official record of its existence. This law will be difficult to enforce.
   
2. AB-1135 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. This law redefines “assault weapons” from “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle” to “semiautomatic rifle” with the evil features. Semiautomatic rimfire rifles are now included in the list of banned rifles.
   
3. AB-156 Ammunition.
1. Following the reappropriation of taxes and fees gun owners pay for background checks and licenses, there are now new fees which California’s legal gun owners must pay to support the enforcement of illegal firearms.
2. I am less concerned about this law. I am confident like every other law banning interstate ammo sales since 2009, this too will be struck down in federal court because it seeks to control a power explicitly held by the Federal Government, interstate commerce. If such a law were to be permitted that would be a huge power grab away from the federal government, good luck.
   
4. SB 1446  Firearms: magazine capacity.
1. This law prohibits possession of any magazine over 10 round capacity. Because there was already a law that prohibited the sale, manufacture, and importation of such magazines since 2002, this specifically targeted the “pre-ban” standard capacity magazines.
2. This law will be difficult to enforce.
   
5. AB-1511 Firearms: lending.
1. Firearm lending is still legal, but limited to immediate family members who must also have a Firearm Safety Certificate one can acquire after passing a test and paying $25. The certificate is valid for 5 years.
2. Let us hope between this law and the still present 10-day waiting period does not have grave results for people in immediate harm.
   
6. AB 1695 Firearms: notice to purchasers: false reports of stolen firearms.
1. This bill makes false lost or stolen firearm reports a misdemeanor which includes a stripping of gun ownership for 10 years.
   

Where Do Gun Owners Go From Here?
As I mentioned, some of these laws have a legitimate chance to be struck down in the courts. If a judge places an injunction on the measure then it might not be done. 

Help us Eastern and Northern Districts, you are our only hope.

 The biggest question which I think the Attorney General will have to clarify on the FAQs page, will the newly Registered Assault Weapons (RAWs) be classified differently than the original RAWs from the early 1990’s. If so those who comply with the new laws will be able to have semi-automatic centerfire rifles with all the fun accessories. The manner by which I read the text, says yes, I’m not a lawyer. It should be worth noting no RAW is transferable to any person in the state. If an owner of a RAW wishes to pass it on to family, it cannot be owned in California before the owner dies.
This is the less popular part of the message especially to the frustrated gun owners. I understand the frustration. I recognize the sabre rattling. I know the impossible nature of enforcing the most onerous laws. I also recognize the estimates of non-compliance from the first round of registration in 1990, when AR-pattern rifles were not yet mainstream. I also recognize the philosophical factors concerning unjust laws, most especially in American history MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Despite these frustrations, if California gun owners want to proclaim that we are indeed law-abiding, then we must comply. I recognize the rough impossibility of enforcement for those who have not featured their firearms on social media. If we wish to abandon that description then we are in a much graver place as a state and nation. Even stirring the masses to “shall not be infringed” fails a history test. Per the 10th Amendment, and due to the present jurisprudence, the State has every right to ban these commonly owned firearms. I deeply disagree with the state of affairs, but I think it a much better solution to move to a less restrictive state than to knowingly violate the law. The Federalist experiment which allows for these many petri dishes known as state governments looks to be failing. I am reminded of this scene from The Patriot.

“And my principals”? I am fearful of any serious talk of rebellion or revolution. I have been to war, twice. One ought not threaten such things lightly. We glorify war in entertainment and speech. I am proud of my honorable service in the recent wars. I am also confident in peaceful resolutions. The way things look, we might be due for a Convention of the States.

Bills Still at the Legislature

7. AB-2510 Firearms: license to carry concealed: uniform license.
8. AB-2459 Firearms dealers: conduct of business.
9. SB-1006 Firearm Violence Research Center
10. SB 1407 Firearms: identifying information.

You Are What You Eat, or Read

I recall a story about about a missionary speaking to a First Nation convert. The exchange concerned the convert’s challenge to living a holy life in his new found faith. “It is like two dogs warring inside me.” “Which dog wins?” “The one I feed the most.” I find this to be an adequate analogy that applies to many more aspects of life. I had a recent spat of blogs which were rather political in nature. Big surprise, I am a Political Science graduate student who hopes to teach in at the collegiate level. I should be a bit of a political animal. I recognized early on, a certain measure of tact necessary for someone of my beliefs and faith needed to remain hireable for such a position in the coming years. Invariably, I’m sure there are opinions expressed in several of my past blogs that might disqualify me from a public institution. That is if such organizations intend on judging people based on their faith, or worse their thoughts from their young adulthood.

I think back to my personal statement on my school application, looking back at my childhood I was almost destined to be a political animal. From car rides listening to talk radio or the constant news on TV, I recalled even as a child having an acute understanding to politics. Needless to say, I do not wish to hijack this blog into some political outlet. My page view counts would certainly advocate such a move, but that was not the purpose of this blog.

The purpose of the blog when it was started and again when it was restarted was to chronicle my adventures and thoughts. As a young man out on his own, stationed in Europe, blogging was a helpful outlet. When I finally got around to moving my blogs to a better hosting medium, I had not yet intended to write again. I have lived in a robust community that frequently challenges my heart and mind in the ways a community ought. It was when I started reading a number of friends’ blogs that I was reminded of the healthy process of observation and self-examination necessary to blog. I have also found this is an opportunity to practice my writing style.

I have spent and will continue to spend the coming years as a full time college student. I easily spend at least an hour each day following major news. This wasn’t a new development. When I was overseas, I devoured news. The ability to attach the necessity of “being in the know” to my graduate work is a convenient intersection. I have recognized a grand failure of my intellectual appetite. I have not read much of any fiction since my elementary days. Even when I did read fiction it was Clancy, Crichton, and the sort. I never learned how to imagine things necessary for fantasy works. It was always fictional stories based in the world I was familiar. I have been seeped in structured writing. The military writing styles were a welcomed tightening of facts that I was already accustomed. The preferred model of writing was to be as clear and concise as possible. When I returned to college it was a noticeable struggle to meet page requirements because I was so used to writing in the briefest manner possible. I still recognize that writing style in my academic writings, but in doing so I also note an oversimplified writing style.

This is where I have to reach out. Reading others who are more expressive in their writings have shown me a beauty in writing which I would like to build. I’m not yet in the place that I can start to chisel through the fictional works I should’ve read as a child. Then again, all those books I should read, I have watched the movies. This subversive act has negated the need of my imagination drawing something from a blank pallet. In the words of one friend, my imagination is broken. If I do not have a movie or TV show to reference when I read fiction I only see stick figures. Despite any descriptions by the author, such details are forgotten while I try to figure out other details, such as “why should I read this?” and “what is happening?” I see this most clearly when reading the Song of Ice and Fire wiki pages. I look into details fans have extricated from the book's text and the references they provide for such conclusions. There is no doubt I would have missed such subtle descriptive references.
There is also the problem of my present reading appetite. Given my present stage as a 2nd year grad student, I am still overwhelmed with dry prose, concise facts, and persuasive arguments (if I’m lucky, otherwise it is sad propaganda attempts.) In some respects I almost accept the role of being a bit of a political tithe. This was the approach Benjamin Franklin’s parents had to his education. He was supposed to be the minister amongst his nine siblings from the same mother. Am I the citizen who is willing to jump on the bitter sword of political knowledge in order to be the informed one among the masses? If so, democracy has some serious challenges before it.

How do I conclude then? Thank you for your readership despite my vanilla writing style. Hopefully, as I read more and write more blogs this style might be as expressive as it aims to be informative.

The 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply...

Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finally delivered their opinion* to Puerta v. County of San Diego. This is the rehearing of the original case that ruled 2-1 to strike down the restrictive means of issuing concealed carry permits. Anyone familiar with the proud reputation of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals this judgement is of no surprise. The only surprise was the delinquency of the judgement. After a short summary of laws that brought us here, I will summarize the majority decision and highlight significant arguments in the dissents.

Concealed carry permits (CCW) or Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHL) are available in all 50 states. In 42 of the 50 states the law requires any resident who is legally eligible to possess or own a firearm who applies and completes the process to get a CCW/CHL, this is known as Shall Issue. In other parts of the nation with growing frequency, states are passing Constitutional Carry which allows a person to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. The remaining 8 states practice, May Issue, that is for whatever reason, a person may be denied a concealed carry permit or in some of these states a firearm permit. New Jersey Second Amendment Society has an interesting undercover series on YouTube.

Taken from USA Carry

California is one of the eight states which are May Issue. As it stands, the issuance is based on the individual policy of each county’s sheriff. The sticking point in order to get a CCW is the “good cause” and “good moral character.” The point of this case was Yolo and San Diego counties had stringent understandings of “good cause.”

Both counties define “good cause” as requiring a particular need. San Diego County defines “good cause” as “a set of circumstances that distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.” Similarly, Yolo County’s written policy requires “valid” reasons for requesting a license. Importantly, under both policies a general desire for self protection and protection of family does not constitute “good cause.” (pg. 68)

The majority opinion narrowly addresses if the 2nd Amendment applies to protect concealed carry. The vast majority of the opinion’s argument approaches this issue from a historical legal analysis that is rather thorough. I would question why the Court looked to the restrictions of serfs and colonists under the King as positive examples showing the “reasonability” of such carry restrictions. There are also 19th century case examples in which numerous localities banned concealed carry to also include bladed weapons. Within the narrow scope of the case and question, the majority does a fair shake…

Except one thing. None of the other states who are may issue have also banned unloaded and loaded open carry statewide. The primary reasons the 3-judge panel struck down the “good cause” requirement the first time was precisely because California banned open carry in populated areas. Here are some quotes from the dissents to elaborate the weakness of the majority opinion.

The majority sets up and knocks down an elaborate straw argument by answering only a narrow question—whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry concealed firearms in public… Indeed, the majority’s lengthy historical analysis fails to appreciate that many of its cited cases either presumed a right to openly carry a firearm in public or relied on a pre-Heller interpretation of the Second Amendment. (pg. 60)

The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II. Heller held that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Indeed, Heller adopted Justice Ginsburg’s definition of “carries a firearm” to mean “wear, bear, or carry... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” (pg. 61)

Heller defined the right to bear arms as the right to be “armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” (pg. 70)

The counties and California have chipped away at the Plaintiff's’ right to bear arms by enacting first a concealed weapons licensing scheme that is tantamount to a complete ban on concealed weapons, and then by enacting an open carry ban. Constitutional rights would become meaningless if states could obliterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each restriction by itself when determining its constitutionality. (pgs. 75-76)

The majority’s holding—that California must accommodate the right to bear arms in public through open carry—is unsupported by Supreme Court precedent and contrary to federalism principles. The Supreme Court has never dictated how states must accommodate a right to bear arms. (pg. 77, emphasis added)

However, the County Defendants and California have failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that there is a reasonable fit between the challenged laws and these two objectives… This distinction is important

because the County Defendants and California have not provided any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, specifically showing that preventing law-abiding citizens, trained in the use of firearms, from carrying concealed firearms helps increase public safety and reduces gun

Violence… There is simply no evidence in the record showing that establishing a licensing regime that allows trained law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public results in an increase in gun violence. (pgs 82-83)

*This is the link of my reviewed text. If you want a blank version of the opinion here you go. The key to my highlights are yellow

SB1146, Are Religious Colleges Under Attack?

Biola Pressroom released this letter to Biolans and Biola supporters. According to this list there are 12 Religious Colleges and Universities which could lose Cal Grant funding if SB1146 becomes law. The original text of the bill has been recently changed to only provide the religious exemption to schools not affiliated with a denomination.

This bill would limit the religious exemption from the Equity in Higher Education Act to certain educational programs and activities of a postsecondary educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization….The bill would make the provisions of the Equity in Higher Education Act severable… This chapter shall not apply to educational programs or activities offered by an educational institution that is controlled by a religious organization to prepare students to become ministers of the religion, to enter upon some other vocation of the religion, or to teach theological subjects pertaining to the religion, if the application of this chapter would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.

Between the 12 listed institutions just over 21,000 students may be directly impacted. Take Biola and Azusa Pacific for example, these two schools are easily the largest on the list of affected schools if this bill becomes law. If 68% and 74% of the students from Biola and APU respectively graduate with borrowed funds, it is reasonable to believe most of them receive funds from Cal Grant. For the sake of argument suppose only half actually get Cal Grant, but without it they would not be able to attend. Can any institution survive a decline of 34-39% of their students? Because there is no date found in the text and this amends an already active law, this is assess if the law is signed this summer the changes will go into effect this coming Fall.

Between the original text (see the red strikethrough) this appears to be a state response following the apparent lead by the Department of Education. In my blog from earlier today I pointed to a helpful article by a Harvard Law Professor on the Title IX bind where schools are forced to accommodate LGBT students while simultaneously sexually offending other students. By all accounts if this bill becomes a law, we will have a new version of Bob Jones v. United States (1983). Instead of racially motivated restrictive admission policies that cost the school federal student aid, it will be discriminatory policies against the LGBT community. Although the text of the bill at current has struck through that text, to me, this only means better lawyers have made alterations to target religious institutions progressively. If the original text remained there would have been active support from our Roman Catholic brethren. If the whole of the religious community does not come together to mobilize their supporters I very easily see this bill being like a poem from a German pastor during WWII.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Allegedly the author of the bill claimed this was not to target religious institutions but, based on the amended text, who was this supposed to affect? This bill only affects religious institutions. Did Senator Lara, a Los Angeles native and member of the LGBT community, have in mind that California debt was too much and college aid was fiscally important? I think it is fair that the original text of the bill does not target religious institutions specifically but it would still greatly impact them. It is the duty of a legislator to consider the effects of all parties involved, not just their particular interest group.

When I analyzed the original text, I found it to be a clear violation of the Lemon Test, brought to you by Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). The Lemon Test has three parts which must be acceptable in order for a law to be constitutional and nondiscriminatory towards an establishment of religion. These criteria are:

1. "the statute must have a secular legislative purpose"
2. "its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion"
3. "the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion.””

Based on these three criteria I am having trouble seeing any of these passing muster.

Then again if one looks to the 7th Court of Appeals Wheaton College v. Burwell (2014). This was Wheaton’s suit against Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) on the same grounds as Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby. It should be sadly noted that in the 8-0 judgement more or less in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor, the Court explicitly said that case was not to be used as a guide to other cases, specifically Wheaton College v. Burwell. In this case, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Wheaton College. The important question following Hobby Lobby’s victory, which many institutions hoped would be answered by Zubik (Little Sisters of the Poor), was if the religious exemption eligibility could be applied to nonprofit institutions. After all, if it could apply to for-profit businesses, why would it not apply to non-profit religious organizations. The primary argument against the Little Sisters of the Poor, was the claim that they were not a religious organization...Let that sink in for a minute.

If SB1146 becomes law, then all the affected institutions should file an immediate suit challenging the constitutionality of the law. In order for it to not go into immediate effect, a judge would have to declare an injunction to prevent the change until the courts processes the challenge. Depending on the sensibilities of the judge it could go one way or another. If the injunction does not occur, then there is a real possibility the schools would go bankrupt before the courts workout the challenges.

This is a state law, therefore the challenge would have to begin at the state courts. It would not be wise to look immediately to the Supreme Court as such a case would likely take at least 4 years to even be submitted to be heard by the Supreme Court. Between this case potentially being a constitutional one and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals having ruled on this, if the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the colleges (if you believe in miracles, such a ruling by that court would definitely qualify) that would bring the probability of the Supreme Court to hear the case up to maybe 5% chance. Oh, being that we don’t know who will be the 9th Justice to replace Justice Scalia, whoever becomes President would most definitely impact this decision. Therefore, if we have a hope in democracy or more importantly that God can intervene, in addition to praying for the affected schools use this link for a form letter to send to your representative.

Update: Here is a response from a far better informed friend concerning my arguments and the claims of the initial letter.

Pardon me if I ignore all normative arguments about the wisdom of the law, the existence of God, and the relative merits of organized religion for a moment, and just talk about the law.

A few minor points: 1) while the bill would narrow the exception only to schools and programs offering training in the ministry specifically, it does not require that the school also be denominational. "Controlled by a religious organization" simply means that the charter of whatever organization controls the school be explicitly religious. That language appears in the Ed Code as it currently exists. 2) the bill has been amended to read that no school which currently receives the Cal Grant will lose Cal Grant eligibility. Therefore, schools like Biola and APU are in no immediate danger on that front.

Now the major point: The Lemon Test is irrelevant. You cannot raise an Establishment Clause claim against government inaction (i.e. the failure to exempt). Also, though I did not read all of the comments and replies previously made, I wanted to address something in the ones I did read: viewpoint neutrality is also irrelevant, since there is no Free Speech claim here. Any constitutional challenge that could be raised to this bill would be under the Free Exercise Clause.

The apposite cases for the Free Exercise Clause are Employment Div. v. Smith (1990) and Locke v. Davey (2004). Smith states that any neutral law of general applicability does not violate the Free Exercise clause, unless the Free Exercise right is combined with some other right (typically in practice this means the right to Freedom of Association). For you court-counters out there, Smith was a 6-3 decision written by the late Justice Scalia, with O'Connor concurring in the judgment, but arguing for the use of the compelling interest test.

In Locke, a pastoral ministries major sued the state of Washington under the Free Exercise clause for withholding a state scholarship which the student was otherwise qualified for. The scholarship program specifically excluded studies in theology. The High Court held, 7-2, that the state of Washington could withhold the scholarship on the basis of the student's religious studies. The Court ruled that states have a "historic and substantial interest" in withholding state funding from religion. Any case involving this bill would be controlled by Locke, and the state's interest in non-discrimination could easily support the state's failure to grant an exemption from its law for programs that are not directly and explicitly theological. Therefore, the bill as it stands is constitutional.