Missouri Baptist Convention Public Policy Director Caught in His Own Web?
- OSS Staff
Today a tweet from State Representative Greg Razer (D-KC) caught the attention of the Ordo, wherein Rep. Razer registered his complaint with Don Hinkle’s (Public Policy Dir. Missouri Baptist Convention) recent anti-MONA religious rant blog in (Hinkle’s) Pathway publication.
We are aware of another hearing in which Mr. Hinkle practiced his yellow journalism; the Missouri House hearing for HB728. On that occasion it was Mr. Brian Kaylor, a distinguished author and well-known figure in the Baptist community who was the victim of Hinkle’s mischaracterizations on a Facebook post.
Mr. Kaylor is the Editor and President of “The Word and Way” a Baptist publication for the Midwest and an Associate Director for “Churchnet” another Baptist network in Missouri. Kaylor recently spoke to the Senate HB 728 Hearing here. Hinkle asserted that Kaylor had said in his testimony, that James Madison had not in fact supported the Bill of Rights, and said that Mr. Kaylor’s comments were stupid. Kaylor never said what Hinkle claims he said.
Our Ordo discovered a recording and transcript of the testimony from HB 728, the “Hearing Nobody Heard”. Readers can see from the transcript that Hinkle either misheard or outright twisted Kaylor’s words. You can also enjoy the compelling audio. Further, during the Senate Hearing for the same bill, Hinkle’s testimony was thin at best in our opinion.
We leave the transcripts, blog links and social media posts on this blog for our readers to decide…
HB 728 Hearing recording:
Written transcript from recording as follows:
Hardy Billington: I think we should move on or take the time to hear that. I appreciate it. Today I am introducing House Bill 728. This bill would make the plaintiff to be named in a lawsuit trying to separate church and state. I believe it high time that we fight for religious liberty. I love my country dearly, and I know everyone on the committee ought to love our country or you would not be here today. Let us all join together and fight for the thing that we believe in. [inaudible 00:00:36] a nation and Missouri for generations. For our government buildings included in the state capitol, to our money, our motto, and our Pledge of Allegiance. We [inaudible 00:00:49] a symbol [inaudible 00:00:50] an inseparable part of our history.
Hardy Billington: We should not, however, groups of the Freedom from Religion Foundation headed to court to try to remove any type of religious symbol from public location. The often [inaudible 00:01:05] unknown plaintiff. The people of Missouri have a well [inaudible 00:01:10] of knowing all of the facts in advance surrounding our courts’ procedure. The defendants are identified. The plaintiffs will be identified also. Case involving the separation of church and state should not be handled in any other way. House Bill 728 will [inaudible 00:01:28] that no individual or organization would ever to use our state court as a weapon to tear at the rights of Missouri citizens to display any religious symbol would hide behind an unknown plaintiff. I would be happy to take any questions that you may have.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Thank you, Representative. I think I’ll save some of my questions for some of the witnesses who I think are going to come up. We’ll start with any witnesses in support of House Bill 728.
Kerry Messer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Kerry Messer of the Missouri Family Network. At issue and behind this legislation are any number of activist organizations. These are organizations that have far reaching agendas. So they are constantly shopping all for potential plaintiffs as well as venues in order to pursue their activist agenda. They bypass the legislative bodies such as this in order to use the courts to do their bidding. Their targets are public entities and predominately businesses. What they know is that if they can get a credible case that sounds good then they impact the insurance industry also.
Kerry Messer: A perfect case as an example of that is with the school superintendent in Humansville Missouri was attacked and sued because he had a Bible on his private desk in his inner office as superintendent. No child ever goes in there. He had a cross on his wall where he stepped over the line, I believe, he had the 10 Commandments on the lunch room wall where the students would see it. However, the school attorneys clearly said that the school would win the case. That was not the problem. The problem was it was too costly to fight it. So what they did was to a cut deal. The superintendent got fired for not participating in the deal. He did nothing wrong. He lost his job, his career. The activist organization got paid all the money as they had intended, without having to go to curt. But the insurance industry then or the insurance company then sent a notice to every other school district in the state saying basically…I don’t have copy of the letter, but it does not matter what the law says. It does not matter what is right or wrong. If you allow these things, we won’t represent you. And there was the bucket of cold water that just intimidated all of the other school districts to comply with something and to prohibit their staff from doing things that constitutionally legal.
Kerry Messer: We are talking about religious liberty, the bedrock foundation issue that made America great here and these activist organizations. Probably the most egregious case that I can cite for you, and I don’t mean to build my whole testimony on [inaudible 00:04:31] other issues, but the significance of this legislation, what is happening in our country begs this. Norma Morkorvy [ed: Presumably Norma McCorvey, the real name of Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade] was counseled to claim falsely that she was raped and needed an abortion in the state of Texas. She never got that abortion but because her identity was held quiet, held apart, no media could ask questions. There was never any cross examinations. That’s the problem when we have people who work under pseudonym names with an activist organization in front of them, nobody knows who to ask the questions of or what the questions should be.
Senator Luetkemeyer: You know what, if you’d just wrap up testimony.
Kerry Messer: Sure.
Senator Luetkemeyer: To keep everybody to three minutes so and we’re going to try to everybody adheres to…
Kerry Messer: Okay. The key point is when we are talking about organizations who are impacting public policy for the state and the nation, we need to at least be able to ask the right questions of the right people who said they have been aggrieved when we do not even know if they are telling the truth or not. Thank you.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Quick technical question. So in federal court, obviously all of these claims could be brought in federal court because often times you are alleging a violation of Bill of Rights.
Kerry Messer: Yes.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Do federal courts have a similar requirement of public disclosure of the names of the plaintiff in a constitutional challenge?
Kerry Messer: I honestly can’t speak authoritatively to that. I am not an attorney. I do not know.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Because one of the things that strikes me about this bill if it were to pass is that it would have the effect of forcing constitutional challenges that could ordinarily be brought to state court and for strategic reasons might push all of them to federal court. And I don’t know how the organizations on both sides of the issue feel about that. But my perspective is that an attorney…
Kerry Messer: Sure.
Senator Luetkemeyer: If you want to have a client who wants to keep their name confidential and all you have to do is make sure you file in federal court, that is going to mean the federal court is going to see an uptick in these and there are going to be less that will be brought to state court.
Kerry Messer: My initial response to that goes to like 35 plus years in dealing with these kinds of things. These activist organizations are going to shop for venue wherever they can. What I’ve seen is generally they will file multiple cases at each level. They are looking for the best outcome they can get. And I think that if the state had this policy, then other states adopted it, then eventually we could prevent some of this, even if it is years down the road before we can impact federal court, if they are doing this, which I assume they are. I think it is the right thing to do. And I think the reasons are right and truth is always on our side. And I think transparency is always a good thing.
Senator Luetkemeyer: The only question I have is that this bill specifically limited to the Establishment Clause, First Amendment. Is there a reason why the other provisions of the Bill of Rights are not in here?
Kerry Messer: Personally, I wouldn’t mind at all it being there. I think that is a question for the sponsor.
Hardy Billington: To me, I would [inaudible 00:07:37] so if I had an issue with my own property that the Freedom of Religion group trying to do. So I’d be happy to [inaudible 00:07:45] have another bill to add to that, an amendment to that, to change the law. I’d be happy to add that.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Thank you for your testimony.
Kerry Messer: Thank you.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Any further witnesses in support of House Bill 728?
Don Hinkle: Don Hinkle with Missionary Baptist Convention. The only other thing I would add to what has already been said is that especially in the cases here in Missouri so far, where the plaintiffs have not been identified, they in order to sway public opinion have used the claim that people who oppose their lawsuits could become violent. But that’s nothing but a smear against the people of Missouri and especially against people who support the First Amendment and especially those who are people of faith with regard to the establishment clause of the First Amendment. So I think it’s only fair that anyone bringing a suit to Missouri should be identified. All of the facts should be known. It certainly should not be allowed to be used as a weapon in order to sway public opinion and convince people that people who oppose the Freedom from Religion Foundation from such lawsuits, that the people in Missouri are violent people or somehow take some kind of action against the plaintiff.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Thank you for your testimony. Are you a witness for them?
Don Hinkle: Yes.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Perfect. Are there any other witnesses in support of House Bill 728?
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator: Yes, ma’am.
Speaker 5: This is [inaudible 00:09:50] from American[inaudible 00:09:50]. I just wanted to go on record in support of House Bill 728.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Great. Thank you for brevity of your testimony. I appreciate it. Any further witnesses in support of House Bill 728. Seeing none, first witness in opposition to House Bill 728.
Speaker 6: This [inaudible 00:10:10]file on order.
Thomas True: Alright, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you letting us speak here. My name is Thomas True from Saint Louis and I represent myself. I am an atheist. I find this bill offensive to me and the heritage of my country and nation.
Thomas True: Back before we had a nation, in Salem colony, I had a great-uncle who served as a judge who resigned the bench to defend a woman accused of being a witch. Back then what they did when there was dissension with religious liberty in court cases, they attacked and burned people that were not in solidarity with the popular religion.
Thomas True: I work in St. Louis, and I have customers who have very diverse religious backgrounds. This is not just for someone like me who is an atheist but people who are on minority religions as well to protect their safety when their rights are being challenged by legislation, so the court can duly judge these cases on their merits and not have the litigants threatened or challenged trying to receive justice in our courts.
Senator ???: Okay. So your main contention though is you feel this would have a chilling effect on First Amendment if people are disclose their name in lawsuits. It would chill people…
Thomas True: I don’t know if it would chill them but it would definitely put them in the possibility for harassment [inaudible 00:12:00] letters or even greater such violations of their personal freedoms and property would increase.
Thomas True: These cases are determined by a judge whether they will have the protected status to hide their names. This is not done by the litigants themselves. They ask for it, but it has to be awarded by the judge. I think we should respect the Judicial and give them the freedom to determine what is best in the case. This should not be a legislative tool to expose people that a reasonable judge would determine otherwise should have this protection.
Senator Luetkemeyer: Okay. Thank you for your testimony. I would appreciate if you would leave the form with us at this time.
Thomas True: Okay. Thank you.
Senator: Thank you. Next witness in opposition to House Bill 728.
Scott McKellar: Is this where you want me to put the form?
Senator: Yes, that works.
Scott McKellar: Thank you for giving me some time this afternoon. My name is Scott McKellar. I am a Missouri resident and voter. I was going to tip my nonexistent hat to my senator Koenig over there, but he’s not there to receive my hat tip.
Scott McKellar: I am here to oppose HB 728. I am not sure how to do so without sounding unhinged or alarmist. In truth, it is HB 728 that is unhinged and profoundly alarming because behind this bland and cryptic legalese lurks a deliberate reversion to barbarism. I would not use those words lightly. HB 728 is a brazen attempt to preserve Christian supremacy, not by relying on the rule of law, but by relying on the threat of actions outside the law. Without anonymity, anyone contemplating an action within the scope of this bill must consider whether he or she is willing to face extra-judicial retaliation in the form of harassment, job loss, death threats and even vigilantism and Christian terrorism.
Scott McKellar: These risks are not simply hypothetical. They are very real. These are things that happen in the real world, not every time, but you don’t in advance whether it is going to happen to you or not. Now I don’t want to tar all Christians with the broad brush. Most Christians would never do such a thing, but it does not take many. It only takes a few. It only takes one. And there is very often at least one.
Scott McKellar: Now I wish Ryan Jane was here. He’s an attorney for FFRF. I haven’t seen him in the room. He can tell you better than I can the kinds of things that he has seen happen in his cases and other cases that he knows about. Now in my written testimony, which by the way I emailed to each of you, and I recommend the electronic version because you can click on stuff. In my written testimony, I’ve outlined a few such cases. These kinds of things are not rare. They are common. They are routine. They are expected. They are typical whenever anyone challenges Christian supremacy without the shield of anonymity.
Scott McKellar: This specter of potentially dire consequences is in fact an essential element of HB 728. It is pretty much the only reason why the bill would have any effect at all. When a plaintiff files anonymously…
Senator Emery: Your three minutes is up. Can you close really quickly with the final remark?
Scott McKellar: Only that no one should be dissuaded from asserting her rights under the Constitution by fear. That’s all.
Senator Emery: Great. And are there questions for this witness? I guess I’m the only one here, So if I don’t have a question, I guess we’re good. Thank you for your testimony. Next witness in opposition to Senate Bill 748. Is that right? 728.
Chad McLaurin: I’m Chad McLaurin, state director for Secular Coalition for Missouri. Just really brief on the organization. We’re nonpartisan. We promote separation of church and state issues. It is the best way to basically govern public policy.
Chad McLaurin: A couple of things I wanted to mention were already brought up thankfully, so I can skip on those. But I did want to point out, from my understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong, there was an instance where FFRF contacted you via a letter doing an inquiry. Did they bring suit?
Senator Emery: Typically we don’t inquire, but your testimony is certainly welcome.
Chad McLaurin: Okay. The way I’m seeing this, my understanding is it was a letter.
Senator Emery: If you want to have that conversation with a representative later, that would certainly be appropriate.
Chad McLaurin: That’s fine. That’s fine.
Chad McLaurin: I guess the exception that I take to this is when we talk about singling out the FFRF, there are other organizations. But to basically accuse them for going out and taking legal cases that have a high chance of winning tells me that it is not the organization’s practices really at fault here. It is a matter of whether we can comply with the existing laws and the intent of what these laws imply in terms of public displays, a lot of these issues would be a non issue.
Chad McLaurin: I do want to point out also the one thing that really impressed me about this particular bill. This is not so much about protecting religious interest as much as it is about removing the equivalent of what is like basically whistle blower protection. So someone should go out there and choose to remain anonymous because of the fear of backlash is the driving factor whether or not anybody else on either side thinks that might be a valid reason. That is the standing practice. Again, it is judicial review that looks at that and assigns that case by case where they are allowed to say that, yes, this case may be allowed to be proceeded from an anonymous perspective. A lot of times the individual bringing the suit is not pivotal to the case, it is the character of what is going on. So I really look at this as an opportunity to view this in light as removing safeguards. And I think that is something that we really do not need to be imposing upon our constituency.
Senator Emery: Thank you. So what is the procedure exactly right now in terms of this defining a threat that would require anonymity?
Chad McLaurin: I am not a judge or a lawyer, so I really can not speak to that. A couple of things that would make sense to me. You have individuals who are vulnerable especially in rural Missouri, you have a concentration of culture. Someone outside of that culture, forcing them to identify poses a risk that they can have even just social backlash. That can impede their career if they are local business owners. That can impede every aspect of their life. So it is not just us being concerted about Missourians being violent and going out there and executing, lynchings, whatever it may be. This has a long impact by forcing people to identify. When they are vulnerable, we should be able to afford them the protections.
Senator Emery: There has been a move to remove anonymity. I guess this is a little bit disassociated, but some of the same environment. Remove anonymity in terms of donors to certain organizations. Have you ever taken a position on that, whether contributors to organizations can remain anonymous?
Chad McLaurin: I have not, and that question was raised and I’m still deliberating on that one. That is a very excellent challenge. I do agree. I think the difference between that particular donor action versus the anonymity of some of these other lawsuits comes back down to the vulnerability of the individuals. I would be willing to at least support in part that vulnerability of a donor list, it can be problematic.
Senator Emery: Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony. Are there any other witness in opposition to Senate Bill…Excuse me. I think I called it Senate Bill earlier. House Bill 728.
Brian Kaylor: Sir
Senator Emery: I see everybody is filling out witness forms. So I will just mention it one more time to make sure everyone remembers. Please proceed.
Brian Kaylor: My name is Brian Kaylor. I’m the associate director of Church Net, a statewide Baptist network. I am the editor of Word Way Baptist Magazine, that has been published in Missouri since 1896. I oppose this legislation as a Baptist minister because I cherish the strong Baptist heritage of standing for religious liberty for all, which includes a healthy separation of church and state. Were it not for the work of Colonial Baptists like Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, John Leland and others, we likely would not have today our First Amendment guaranteed our religious liberty.
Brian Kaylor: As some of those early Baptist faced harassment and persecution, they not only pushed to separate church form state, but sometimes they did so anonymously or with pseudonyms. Even James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, and who as a young attorney defended the rights of imprisoned Baptist preachers, wrote one of his most significant pieces of religious liberty anonymously as he critiqued Virginia lawmakers attempting to force their faith on the public. So I sit before you as one who believes in religious liberty for all. And one who believes that sometimes such advocacy may require anonymity.
Brian Kaylor: There are many problems with this unnecessary and dangerous bill. It usurps judges of their power. It puts people in danger. It limits one of our first freedoms. But let us be honest. This bill is not about transparency, but about limiting religious freedom. This bill is about trying to protect those who want to officially establish their faith. It seeks to do this by reducing the lawsuits designed to protect religious liberty for all.
Brian Kaylor: Thus the logic of this bill is self defeating. It is designed as supporters claim to reduce the number of Church State lawsuits. Yet supporters also claim there is no need for anonymity since there is no serious harassment or persecution. But if there is no harassment, then why would the number of lawsuits decline? This bill will reduce the number of lawsuits precisely because anonymity is sometimes unfortunately needed.
Brian Kaylor: A vote for this bill is a vote to limit our First Amendment freedoms, a vote to ignore the religious freedoms of minorities, and a vote to protect unconstitutional acts. So I respectfully urge you vote against this problematical bill. Happy to take any questions.
Senator Emery: Thank you. Do you know if James Madison ever filed a lawsuit anonymously?
Brian Kaylor: Not that I’m aware of, but I’m also as a non attorney, I’m not aware of the legal system. In fact, the thing that he wrote was prior the founding of the United States, so it would have been under a completely different legal system anyways. So I’m just not even sure if that would have been applicable opportunity. But I’m not aware of any.
Senator Emery: Do you think that anonymity might have been even more important then?
Brian Kaylor: What’s that?
Senator Emery: I would think…
Brian Kaylor: I am just not necessarily sure that that was a protection that judges could grant. Whereas today, judges do have the ability to provide that for safety. I am just not aware of any.
Senator Emery: Thank you for your testimony. Next witness in opposition to House Bill number 728.
Gwen Lesch: Good afternoon, Senator. My name is Gwendolyn Lesch. I’m a disabled veteran of the United States Air Force. I am also a transgender woman and a Lilituan Satanist. I’m submitting this testimony in opposition to bill House 728 as it is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Gwen Lesch: As a Satanist and as a transgender woman I have expected for some time automatic reactions to who I am. As a satanist, I have experienced a great deal of prejudice. As well as being transgender. I have received death threats in the street out in front of my house, as well as in other locations around the city, as well in other locations around the state.
Gwen Lesch: Today I’m being open about my choice of religion and status as a trans woman because it is directly relevant to HB 728 and the consequence it will have. Who I am makes me vulnerable to a host of negative treatment under plain circumstances. Imagine my right to religious freedom were infringed upon so that the only recourse was to follow suit in response to the injustice. Imagine the public reaction to my identity.
Gwen Lesch: I suggest this example because I already know of a case in which this occurred. I know someone whose life and safety depended upon the anonymity afforded by the courts. When the anonymity was compromised they were subject to threats and degrading harassment. This harassment had one overarching element. It originated mostly from self proclaimed Christians in direct response to their own choice of religion. On a number of occasions law enforcement became involved.
Gwen Lesch: What the committee will understand the most though is the fiduciary cost of these threats. Cities and townships will feel financial strain with each call to the police. Every extra patrol. Every investigation into redundant death threats. Every incident of vandalism against the identity of an RFRA plaintiff will put a strain on law enforcement and the budgets of townships and counties.
Gwen Lesch: Now religious encroachment are a very real problem and these issues tend to be highly inflammatory. Emotions run high, and people act on stupid impulses. It can not be denied that this is common human behavior. I submit that denying the right of anonymity to a plaintiff in these cases will lead to both a human cost and a debt to the taxpayers in addressing that human cost. If you the Committee are not moved by this situation of those seeking justice whose safety depends on the discretion of the courts, then at least consider the lost of treasure from the mayhem that will inevitably ensue from denying plaintiffs their First Amendment rights. And that is my testimony. Thank you.
Senator Emery: Thank you for your testimony. Can you be more specific about the lawsuit that you referenced?
Gwen Lesch: That individual is still…Her anonymity is still…
Senator Emery: Well, I was not asking you to violate anonymity. I was asking you about the lawsuit.
Gwen Lesch: The lawsuit was over the requirements for abortion services in this state.
Senator Emery: Okay. So it was a lawsuit against the state?
Gwen Lesch: Yes.
Senator Emery: Okay. Thank you. I’m the only one here, so there are no more questions. Thank you for your testimony.
Gwen Lesch: You are welcome.
Senator Emery: Next witness again opposition to House Bill 728.
Alison Gill: Thank you, Senator. My name is Alison Gill, and I am Vice President for Legal and Policy for American Atheists. I testify today on behalf of American Atheists and our constituents living in Missouri. We strongly urge you to oppose HB 728, which is a harmful bill which would impede the freedom of religion for all Missourians. Separation of religion and government is a foundational constitutional principle and the very basis of the freedom of religion that all Americans enjoy. However, this bill undermines this essential freedom by making it more difficult for people whose religious liberty has been violated to bring lawsuits against the government.
Alison Gill: American Atheists is national civil rights organization that works to achieve religious equality for all Americans by protecting what Thomas Jefferson called the law of separation between government and religion created by the First Amendment. American Atheists opposes efforts to undermine the freedom of religion to all Americans. No one should be subject to public harassment or death threats simply for enforcing their Constitutionalists rights.
Alison Gill: HB 728 would put plaintiffs who stand up for their freedom of religion at risk by preventing then from bringing cases anonymously. It would treats these plaintiffs differently from all other litigants who may try to bring cases under a pseudonym if the lawsuit would put them in danger. Everyone should be able to go to court to protect their religious freedom without fear of retaliation. The unfortunate fact is that all too often, people who stand up for their religious liberty face public harassment and death threats.
Alison Gill: The official testimony submitted as well as the attached memorandum filed by various cases by the ACLU detailed dozens of these incidents. However, I would like to focus on the story of the founder of the American Atheists, Madalyn Murray O’Hair. After Madalyn challenged school-led prayer, the practice of mandatory Bible readings by students in schools, her children were physically assaulted in school. She received mail containing photos of her family smeared with feces. Her son’s pet kitten was strangled. Her home was stoned. In fact, her home was late fire bombed, and the fire department purposely failed to save it, instead taking over 40 minutes to arrive at the site. These were just a few of the innumerable incidents of harassment intimidation she and her family received because of Madalyn’s advocacy for religions freedom. Madalyn and her family were ultimately driven out of Baltimore due to the persecution.
Alison Gill: While Madalyn was a proud atheist, public harassment and death threats against those who would assert their religion freedom are not limited to one set of religions beliefs. They affect everyone. However, this misguided legislation would weaponize this harassment and embolden those who threaten the lives and well-being of Missouri citizens in order to prevent people from standing up in defense of their Constitutional rights. Actively promoting this harassing behavior is not only harmful, it’s unconstitutional and it is un-American. Thank you for allowing me to testify against this dangerous bill. We strongly suggest you vote against HB 728, and I’m happy to take any questions.
Senator Emery: Thank you, Alison. Do you know what the procedure is? If I want to file a lawsuit anonymously, how would I get a judge’s approval? What would I have to do to do that?
Alison Gill: You would submit a petition to the judge asking for a leave to file anonymously. You would lay out the facts about why it is important. The judge would give you permission to be able to then submit the lawsuit anonymously. And they would give a Doe or Roe name basically to use.
Senator Emery: Okay. Are there certain criteria that would have to be met?
Alison Gill: The courts that have looked at this issue have made clear that it has to be a balancing test. So they would have to look at the factors which would put the person at risk or in danger. The judge has to weigh that against the needs of the community and people’s ability to know and look at the litigation and understand the significance of it.
Alison Gill: There was one piece of misinformation earlier that I heard, and that’s that people are never able to be questioned. Just because someone files anonymously, they still have to go to court. In court itself, people will be questioned and they will be witnesses and that sort of thing. That will be sealed. Their identity will be hidden.
Senator Emery: They would not appear under their own name.
Alison Gill: Exactly.
Senator Emery: Okay.
Alison Gill: But they will still be cross examined and still questioned and everything else. It’s not like no one knows who they are. So that is the falseness.
Senator Emery: Is it rebuttable presumption that they need protection or is there any presumption at all?
Alison Gill: There is no presumption. It is something that you need to show to the judge. You have to prove that is is more likely than not that you need the protection.
Senator Emery: So the judge has to weigh the public’s need to know versus the private citizen’s need to be anonymous.
Alison Gill: Be safe. Yes, exactly. Be safe from harassment and danger.
Alison Gill: This is not typical. This is not granted commonly. I asked several of the other organizations who are involved. This just does not come up quite often in Missouri. It is sort of infrequent, this request. When it is asked for, it is very important that it is granted and allowed. Judges need that discretion in order to keep people safe. And judges safe, too. There’s been many cases submitted where the judge has been put in danger, and so that is also a problem.
Senator Emery: Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Any other witnesses in opposition? We are running close on time.
Nikki Moungo: Okay, well I timed mine last night, so…
Senator Emery: Everyone’s been sticking pretty much to the three minutes.
Nikki Moungo: Okay. Yeah. My name is Nikki Moungo. I’m from Ballwin. Today I have found my religious home within Lilituan Satanism, but in 2014, I was involved in a church and state matter in the city of Ballwin. This was not a case. It was just a proposal that we were discussing. So I will start.
Nikki Moungo: I’m here today to shed some light on what’s it is like to be an atheist on public record in Missouri. In September 2014, I went on public record, just public record at City Hall, for the first time in a spur of the moment decision. I didn’t have much time to think about the potential dangers before signing up or who would have access to my private information. Drawing me to the meeting was a proposal to place an In God We Trust signed display on our City Hall walls. Now you can relax because I’m not here to discuss why In Good We Trust is not secular. I will be happy to provide testimony to that effect at another time.
Nikki Moungo: The Ballwin In God We Trust proposal and video of my speech gained national media attention. That too was unexpected. It was just Ballwin. It was just a local level. It was not even a state case. Where was I? Sorry. After the articles came out, we began receiving repeated calls from automated prayer lines, I assume as a joke, or maybe not, to our home number. We have not used our home answering machine since 2014 because of this.
Nikki Moungo: After the articles came out, I was informed that members of our school district’s PTO were unhappy with my speech and the resulting media attention. I wondered how this could negatively affect my child at school with his peers, with teachers, and with administration. He reported a few very uncomfortable situations with his peers, who were asking personal questions about his mother. But he did not want personal interference or parental interference at the time. We encourage our children to try and resolve and come to us when they can not.
Nikki Moungo: There were unfamiliar cars that were driving slowly back and forth in front of my home. At least one neighbor took note and made comment. So I had people that were helping me look out. There was the usual negative and positive social media commentary with one comment verging on a threat saying she should be shot. Not actionable, but concerning all the same.
Nikki Moungo: Ballwin had changed. I took some comfort we were 1.5 minutes from the police department. We started meeting our child at the bus stop and being vigilant about locking our doors. This is Ballwin. I kept my phone charged and on me at all times. I did not leave home without checking the street and made quick work getting in and out of my vehicle. I did not allow the kids to get the mail as well as a box and its content were now suspect. I shopped at grocery stores in other cities for a while, avoiding Ballwin commerce all together.
Nikki Moungo: Going on public record over a church and state matter in 2014 affected my quality of life in negative ways, especially mine and my children’s personal freedom. We spoke to a friend in law enforcement about this situation who was aware my husband is a CCW holder. We were told to stand our ground.
Senator Emery: Are you just about finished?
Nikki Moungo: Yes. I have like two sentences. I don’t want to be forced to defend myself and harm another simply because I sought to defend my constitutional rights. Where matters of church and state encroach upon us, the State should guarantee my right to safely lodge a complaint under anonymous protection. Can the facts and evidence not be allowed to stand for themselves? What is in a name? What does a name hold that the facts do not? Thank you very much.
Senator Emery: Thank you.
Nikki Moungo: Do you have any questions?
Senator Emery: Thank you for your testimony. I need to move right on.
Nikki Moungo: All right. Thank you.
Senator Emery: Next witness in opposition. Please go as quickly as you can, Sara.
Sara Baker: Okay, I’ll try not to repeat.
Senator Emery: Yes, do that.
Sara Baker: Good afternoon, members of the Committee. My name is Sara Baker. I’m the legislative and policy director of the ACLU Missouri. Thank you for allowing me to testify. We would like to go on record in opposition to House Bill 728.
Sara Baker: I am not going to reiterate what has already been said about the fears of harassment that can emerge when when a plaintiff is not allowed to remain anonymous. I want to focus instead on the ACLU’s role in deciding religious liberty in the past. I brought with me 29 pages of cases that the ACLU has filed on behalf of individuals who believe that their religious rights were violated. Many of those are Christian individuals as well.
Sara Baker: I think that we have to recognize that with this legislation it cuts both ways. It is not just individuals who may not have a religious affiliation or may have a religious affiliation that is deeply disagreed with by someone on this committee, it is everyone’s religious freedom we are talking about here. So in cases where the ACLU has represented a 7th Day Adventist or where we have represented individuals who are interested in making sure that they are granted a permit for the National Day of the Right to Prayer. We are also talking about incidences in which those plaintiffs could not remain anonymous and face potential harassment because of that.
Sara Baker: For those reasons, I want to say that when we are talking about protecting religious liberty, we have to make sure that this is an all encompassing right as the founders intended. We have to make sure that we uphold the judicial discretion to ensure that the individuals are not faced with harassment and are not chilled from bringing their issues forward. I think that is something that we as Americans can agree should be put forward. So because of that I would move at least, if we do not pass this bill out of committee, which would be the preference, but if we do that, that we make an amendment that allows us to say that if an individual is going to be harassed, there is real threat of violence, that we make sure that there is still judicial discretion. Otherwise, I think we face potential situation which we are asking for harm to come to people who might bring these cases forward, and I don’t think that would be the intention of this body.
Senator Emery: Thank you, Sara. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to House Bill 728? Are there any witnesses for information purposes? All right. I think we made it. I don’t usually take comments.
Hardy Billington: Oh, you don’t?
Senator Emery: But if the Chairman was here, I think he does.
Hardy Billington: Oh, okay. I know.
Senator Emery: But thank you all. I apologize that so many on the committee had to go to other hearings. I was in another session with two or three of the others that were here. I don’t know what happened, but I am sorry that everybody was not here for this. This time of year it is difficult to keep a committee together. Thank you all for being here. And thank you, Representative. We will adjourn.
- END TRANSCRIPT
