Specifically, check out Haggadah supplements at the Velveteen Rabbi

and Tikkun Magazine.

Here is a suggested Opening Prayer from Velveteen Rabbi Haggadah:

We read responsively:

Long ago at this season, our people set out on a journey.

On such a night as this, Israel went from degradation to joy.

We give thanks for the liberation of days gone by.

And we pray for all who are still bound.

Eternal God, may all who hunger come to rejoice in a new Passover.

Let all the human family sit at Your table, drink the wine of deliverance, eat the bread of freedom:

Freedom from bondage and freedom from oppression

Freedom from hunger and freedom from want

Freedom from hatred and freedom from fear

Freedom to think and freedom to speak

Freedom to teach and freedom to learn

Freedom to love and freedom to share

Freedom to hope and freedom to rejoice

Soon, in our days Amen.

In the case of death row prisoner Hank Skinner (about whom I have written here and here), most of the court filings – which show the extent of this judicial travesty – are readily available to anyone who is willing to devote a few minutes to read them.

I have compiled some links and recommend that you browse them. After reading the briefs (or at least summaries prepared by lawyers and investigative journalists) you will be able to determine whether we have a system that strives to produce justice or a broken system designed to hide the terrible mistakes it sometimes makes, while erecting an impenetrable procedural wall that denies convicted defendants the opportunity to prove their innocence. Here is a non-exhaustive list of resources:

The procedural history of Skinner case (Attorney Mark Bennet)

Skinner’s federal civil rights Complaint against District Attorney Lynn Switzer (Nov. 27, 2009; a Section 1983 lawsuit arguing that her refusal to allow him to test critical DNA evidence violates his constitutionally-protected life and liberty interests)

Decision of Judge Mary Lou Robinson, District Court, 31st Judicial District of Texas, Jan. 10, 2010 dismissing the Complaint (available at www.hankskinner.org –> legal documents)

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision (Jan 28, 2010) – summarily denying the appeal from the District Court’s decision.

Petition to the US Supreme Court for Writ of Certiorari + Application for Stay of Execution (Feb. 12, 2010) – available at www.hankskinner.org –> legal documents

Docket Summary, Supreme Court (showing the Court had ample time to halt the execution and did not have to play a painfully cruel game with Skinner and wait until an hour before his scheduled execution to issue the order)

Supreme Court Stay of Execution (March 24, 2010, issued less than an hour before scheduled execution)

Excellent articles:

Isn’t a Man’s Life Worth an Extra 30 Days? (Bob Ray Sanders, McClatchy Newspapers)

Thwarting Justice by Denying DNA Testing (Judge H. Lee Sarokin, Huffington Post)

Testing Phobia (Dave Lindroff, Counterpunch)

With DNA Still Untested, Texas Prisoner Hank Skinner Scheduled to Die Tonight (Liliana Segura, AlterNet)

Editorial: Hold up Skinner execution for DNA tests (Dallas Morning News)

Death row inmate entitled to delay for DNA tests (Austin American Statesman)

Blog Coverage of the Skinner Stay (The Standdown Texas Project)

Justices May Opt to Settle DNA issue (Allan Turner, Houston Chronicle)

Videos:

Larry Ling Live (interview with Hank Skinner, wife Sandrine and Mr. Curtis, exonerated by DNA evidence)

(more links to be added soon)

Skinner was found guilty of the 1993 murder of his girlfriend and her two adult sons, and is scheduled to be executed on March 24th. In his original trial, Skinner was represented by a former district attorney who had previously prosecuted him for theft and assault. He was convicted primarily on the basis of testimony from his ex-girlfriend, which she recanted in 1997, and on circumstantial evidence. Skinner has vigorously maintained his innocence. To date, the State of Texas has refused to test or release all of the DNA evidence that was collected from the crime scene – including fingernails, a rape kit, knives, a towel, and a windbreaker – that could possibly exonerate Skinner.

Former Texas district attorney Sam Millsap published an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle lambasting Texas authorities for refusing to grant post-conviction DNA testing. He starts the op-ed by recounting another case in which DNA testing came too late:

Last week, Gov. Rick Perry granted the state’s first posthumous pardon to a man who was innocent of a crime for which he had spent 13 years in prison. DNA testing cleared Tim Cole of a rape he did not commit, but unfortunately it came too late — nine years after he had died in prison. The state must do everything it can to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.

…

I’m not an advocate for Hank Skinner. I’m an advocate for the truth. If DNA tests could remove the uncertainty about Skinner’s guilt — one way or the other — there’s not a good reason in the world not to do it.

Attorney Millsap explains persuasively why he no longer supports the death penalty:

Since 1973, 139 people in 26 states have been released from death row based on evidence of their innocence. Eleven of them were in Texas. Many of these people were freed because of DNA evidence. But DNA testing works only if we use it.

Skinner’s execution date is just a few days away, but key pieces of evidence have never been tested, including two knives, one of which might be the murder weapon; a man’s windbreaker, which had blood, sweat and hair on it and was found next to the victim’s body; the victim’s fingernails, which may have DNA evidence under them; and samples from a rape kit.

Skinner’s last hope is now with the Supreme Court:

Attorneys for Skinner have filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to stop Skinner’s execution in order to decide whether prisoners can use the Civil Rights Act to compel post-conviction DNA testing. That’s Skinner’s last chance, and I hope the court intervenes. But frankly, I’d rather see Texas clean up its own house on this one. Before we send a man to his death, shouldn’t we do everything in our power to be certain of his guilt?

Now is the time for all the Jewish organizations that mobilized to save the life of Martin Grossman RIP to raise their voices to stop this impending execution. The words of Israeli Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger, who intervened on behalf of Grossman, resonate in this case even louder:

It has come to my attention that new evidence has surfaced and changes in the law have taken place that merit the consideration of clemency… Biblical tradition also emphasizes that justice must be tempered with mercy, and justice must be scrupulously administered to avoid any possible miscarriage. This is particularly true in the case of capital punishment.

Please join the people and the organizations mobilizing to stop this execution. To learn more about this case and take steps to apply pressure to prevent Texas from committing this travesty – click here.

May the SCOTUS justices act according to basic standards of justice and decency and issue an order to stop this execution.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This is the current official version, but the phrase “under God” wasn’t always there. It was added by Congress in 1954 in a Cold War-era gesture against the godless communism of the Soviet Union. Almost immediately after the amendment of the pledge, the constitutionality of the phrase was challenged but the amendment easily survived these challenges; it seemed no court would dare face head-on the powerful religious forces in America.

But that changed in 2002, when atheist Michael Newdow successfully challenged the constitutionality of the recitation of “under God” in public schools. He contended that mandating his child to mention God violates the principle of separation of church and state, and is thus prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

When the California-based 9th Circuit ruled in 2002 in his favor, holding that the wording violated the Establishment Clause which prohibits the enactment of any law or official policy in support of a religion, a huge political firestorm erupted. Lawmakers in both houses of Congress took to the floor to condemn the legal ruling. Pundits and talk show hosts decried the brazen Ninth Circuit court for, God forbid [pun intended], supporting and advancing atheism in the US.

The controversy died in a whimper when when a U.S. Supreme Court review in 2004 ducked the constitutional question. The justices threw out Newdow’s lawsuit against the Elk Grove Unified School District, which his daughter attended, on grounds that he lacked standing to sue because he didn’t have primary custody of the girl.

Not a person to give up a worthy constitutional fight, Newdow, a physician with a law degree, brought an identical challenge against the Rio Linda Union School District practice of leading daily pledges, and won – on behalf of his client, an atheist whose daughter attends public school in the district – a favorable ruling from the District Court barring the recitation of the words “under God.”

But today, the 9th Circuit, in a divided 2-1 ruling [193 pages], reversed the lower court’s decision and upheld the constitutionality of the “under God” phrase.

First, the majority opinion noted that the question is not whether schools can force students to recite these words against their wishes. It was stipulated by all the parties that students who elect not to recite the pledge are free to do so. The Supreme Court ruled, decades ago, that forcing a student to recite the pledge would constitute a clear violation of a citizen’s right to be free of state interference in his religious or atheistic beliefs. This is how the majority opinion phrased the legal question at the heart of this case:

Thus, this case presents a familiar dilemma in our pluralistic society—how to balance conflicting interests when one group wants to do something for patriotic reasons that another groups finds offensive to its religious (or atheistic) beliefs. In other words, does Roe have the right to prevent teachers from leading other students from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance—something we all agree is a patriotic exercise—because the mention of God in the Pledge offends her as an atheist?

The majority’s answer was a resounding “no.” They held:

that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’ ostensible and predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism and that the context of the Pledge – its wording as a whole, the preamble to the statute, and this nation’s history—demonstrate that it is a predominantly patriotic exercise. For these reasons, the phrase “one Nation under God” does not turn this patriotic exercise into a religious activity.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a champion of civil liberties, dissented. In a rigorous and powerful 130-page opinion, he refuted each one of the majority’s arguments. First, he accused the majority of deliberately misstating the issue that is before the Court, explaining that:

In 1954 Congress amended the Pledge by inserting into that patriotic and secular instrument the religious phrase “under God.” The issue here is whether the amendment to the Pledge — the insertion of the phrase “under God” — was enacted for a predominantly religious purpose, not whether the Pledge as a whole was enacted for such a purpose.

Second, he wrote, the issue is not whether a young student can prevent other young students from reciting a pledge with a religious reference. Rather, he opined, the issue is whether the Constitution prohibits young Roe’s state-employed teachers from conducting the state-directed, daily recitation of the “under God” version of the Pledge in public schools. To be sure, prohibiting such recitations “deprives Christians [and other adherents to monotheistic religions] of the satisfaction of seeing the government adopt their religious message as [its] own, but this kind of government affiliation with particular religious messages is precisely what the Establishment Clause precludes.”

Judge Reinhardt scrutinizes with a microscope the Congressional amendment that added the words “under God” and concludes:

To put it bluntly, no judge familiar with the history of the Pledge could in good conscience believe, as today’s majority purports to do, that the words “under God” were inserted into the Pledge for any purpose other than an explicitly and predominantly religious one: “to recognize the power and the universality of God in our pledge of allegiance;” to “acknowledge the dependence of our people, and our Government upon the moral direction and the restraints of religion,” 100 Cong. Rec. 7590-91 (1954); and to indoctrinate schoolchildren in the belief that God exists, id. at 5915, 6919.

The Lemon test (a.k.a. SEX test)

Judge Reinhardt goes on to apply the Supreme Court jurisprudence on the interpretation of Establishment Clause. He shows that state-directed, teacher-led recitation of the “under God” version of the Pledge clearly fails to meet the constitutional standards under the famous Lemon test.

The Lemon test, for those not well-versed in First Amendment cases, refers to the three-pronged test applied to determine whether a law – which entangles the state with religion – can pass constitutional muster. Articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the 3 conditions that need to be met are:

1. The statute [or practice] must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. Finally, the statute [or practice] must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.

In short, the court needs to determine 3 factors: Secular, Effect, Xcessive (and, hence, the law school mnemonic – the SEX test). Failure to satisfy any one of the three prongs of the Lemon test is sufficient to invalidate the challenged law or practice.

In this case, because the addition of the words “under God” had a predominantly religious purpose, it necessarily violates the Establishment Clause. Indeed, Judge Reinhardt argues persuasively, under the 1954 amendment, there is no conceivable way that the plain text, let alone the history, of the Pledge as amended can be read in any way other than as an affirmation of what the author of the amendment referred to as “the definitive factor in the American way of life[:] . . . belief in God.” 100 Cong. Rec. 1700. One simply cannot in good faith daily affirm loyalty to a nation “under God” if one does not believe that God exists, questions whether there is a God, or believes in polytheism.

Reinhardt attacks the majority opinion, saying that the fundamental error the majority makes that permeates its entire analysis is that it fails to comprehend that the Lemon test must be applied to the 1954 amendment that adds “under God” to the Pledge and not to the Pledge in its entirety. The majority’s attempt to ignore the amendment and instead base its analysis on “the Pledge as a whole” is contrary to the legal principles. Moreover, Judge Reinhardt argues the majority is using a dishonest approach in order to achieve a preconceived outcome. In one of his blistering attacks on the majority, he writes:

Although the majority’s willful blindness toward the existence and text of the amendment to the Pledge may be a necessary precondition to its reaching its desired outcome in this case, its refusal to follow controlling Supreme Court precedent reflects remarkable disdain for the law.

Newdow, as expected, vowed to continue on with the fight. He said he would petition for rehearing en banc (a rehearing by a full 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit) and for Supreme Court review. But his chances are bleak. It is a hugely unpopular cause, and the forces aligned against him are just too powerful. He needs to pray for a miracle to get this decision reversed. Oh, wait a minute, he’s an atheist, so that won’t happen. . . Well, the atheists and agnostics in the US will need to find some extremely courageous judges willing to stand up to a barrage of bashing from the religious right. In the current atmosphere, it’s a very unlikely scenario.

Folks in Washington, they like to talk. So Washington is doing right now what Washington does. They’re speculating breathlessly day or night. Every columnist. Every pundit. Every talking head. Is this proposal going to help the Republicans or is this proposal going to help the Democrats? The time to talk is over. It’s time to vote.

But who is to blame for so much talk and so little action? Part of the blame falls on the President’s shoulders because he is the one constantly trumpeting the call for bipartisanship. Indeed, he never misses an opportunity to miss bipartisanship (see, e.g., the recent State of the Union address). But when you focus too much on appeasing the other party – you bring upon yourself paralysis and lose the public’s trust and confidence.

By the time the President made all the concessions to the Republicans and the so-called conservative democrats, the health care reform bill became such a watered-down version of a truly democratic, equal and fair health care system that it hardly justifies the title “reform.” Yes, it’s better than nothing, but it’s deeply disappointing that it will still leave some 15-20 millions of Americans uninsured. What a shame that Democrats don’t have the same motivation and dedication for the universal health care agenda that Republicans have for their social conservative agenda. Why couldn’t the Democrats rely on their majority in Congress and pass a truly enlightened bill that would guarantee universal health care? So what if some Republicans would bark and whine and intimidate?

Imagine a reverse situation – a Republican president and a Republican-controlled Congress. Is there any doubt they would storm the Senate and the House. guns blazing, mowing down anyone standing in their way, and pass – by hook or by crook – the bills that implement their agenda?

If you stand for a principle – go for it. As Tuco said in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: When you have to shoot, shoot, don’t talk.

It was a picture of Nour, a sweet one-year-old from Gaza who has Congenital Heart Disease, and needs life-saving surgeries and treatments to repair her heart. Congenital Heart Disease is a type of defect in one or more structures of the heart or blood vessels that occurs while the fetus is developing in the uterus, and affects 8-10 out of every 1,000 children. Nour’s prohibitively-expensive medical treatments are being sponsored by Save a Child’s Heart (SACH), an organization founded by synagogue members Dr. Ovadiah and Dolores Cohen.

Established in memory of their son Dr. Ami Cohen, SACH is an Israeli-based international humanitarian project, whose mission is to improve the quality of pediatric cardiac care for children from developing countries who suffer from heart disease, and to create centers of competence in these countries. SACH is “totally dedicated to the idea that every child deserves the best medical treatment available, regardless of the child’s nationality, religion, color, gender or financial situation.” According to its website, SACH has helped save the lives of more than 200 children from Angola, China, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Nigeria, the Palestinian Authority, the Philippines, Romania, Sudan, Uganda and Zanzibar. Since the project was founded, SACH has treated more than 1,000 Palestinian children.

Nour was born at term weighing 4 kgs and diagnosed with Congenital Heart Disease at the age of one month when her parents took her to the doctor because she had a cold and turned bluish. Nour’s father is a Gaza policeman and her mother is a university student. Nour has an 8-year-old brother, and three sisters aged 9, 7 and 5. On March 15, 2009, Nour underwent her first open heart surgery at Al-Muqased hospital in East Jerusalem. She was later referred to SACH to undergo further treatment. On December 24, 2009, Nour underwent a diagnostic cardiac catheterization under the hands of Dr. Akiva Tamir and his team. This paved the way for the January 2010 surgery performed by Dr. Lior Sasson and his team of experts.

It is heartwarming to see members of the synagogue donating to this important cause, which embodies our core values. Please join us in this endeavor – you can donate directly to the Foundation here or to the synagogue here (and earmark it to the Foundation). Help us mend the hearts of children from developing countries by financially sponsoring the children’s treatments and by training local doctors with the requisite knowledge to perform these life-saving procedures.

The devastating report details how FBI agents for years sought records from the 3 major telecommunication providers, referred to in the report as Company A, B, and C, by citing often non-existing emergencies and using misleading language. The Inspector General calls the FBI’s violations an “egregious breakdown,” pointing to the practice of making misstatements to the special FISA court about how sensitive information had been obtained. Specifically, the report finds that FBI personnel filed “inaccurate sworn declarations” with the FISA Court to the effect of stating to the court that the calling activity information was obtained in response to National Security Letters or grand jury subpoena when in fact the information was obtained by other means.

In addition, the report finds that the FBI used exigent letters to improperly obtain toll phone call information from Washington Post and New York Times reporters. The FBI failed to follow-up with a subpoena and did not obtain the required approval from the Attorney General.

Given that the report does not recommend taking legal action against those responsible for these egregious violations of the law, the question remains: Who will enforce the law on law enforcement?

Even while being killed by the cowardly executioners of Florida, led by chief executioner Gov. Charlie Crist, he maintained his dignity. He could have lashed out at this cruel and unjust system. Instead, he expressed profound remorse for the crime he had committed more than 25 years ago, and said Shema Yisrael, the sacred Biblical text recited in the daily prayer (see my commentary here) and, more poignantly, recited by Jewish martyrs throughout the ages as they were being executed. As reported by Tampa Bay Online:

In a final statement, Grossman expressed remorse to the family of Peggy Park, the Florida wildlife officer he beat and shot to death more than 25 years ago.

“I would like to extend my heartfelt remorse to the victim’s family,” Grossman said. “I fully regret everything that happened that night, everything that was done, whether I remember everything or not. I accept responsibility.”

“I would like to say a prayer,” the 45-year-old man added, then, lying on a gurney, hands strapped to arm boards and with needles in both arms, he began reciting a Jewish prayer called the Schma.

It is the most sacred prayer in Judaism and the first prayer that Jewish children learn. Among its verses: “The Lord is our God, God is one.”

This utterly infuriating execution diminishes the value of human life. For those of us who are opposed to the state-sponsored and governor-stamped death squads, it will take a while to gather our thoughts. But we must redouble our efforts to abolish this primitive, barbaric (in constitutional lingo “cruel and unusual”) punishment that has no place in a modern, enlightened society. How long will the United States remain in the the moral cesspool into which it has descended together with Iran, China, Somalia and Saudi Arabia?

Hold Governor Charlie Crist Accountable

Of course, the death squads will not be eliminated from our system in a quick fix. It will take significant grassroots activism and astute political skills to remove this embarrassing stain. Certainly, one necessary ingredient must be holding executioners accountable.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist must pay the ultimate political price for his crime. His rush to murder Martin Grossman, denying him even the modest 60-day stay that was justified to present a fully-supported clemency request based on new evidence regarding mitigating circumstances, was no doubt politically-motivated. Accordingly, that’s where he needs to be punished.

Crist is in a primary battle to win the Republican nomination for the upcoming Senate race in Florida. I hope the thousands of leaders and ordinary citizens that organized and pleaded to save Grossman’s life will devote their energy to ensure he never again gets elected to any public office. It’s not too early to mobilize to defeat his political aspirations and foil his future political plans. That would certainly send one powerful message to all the other politicians out there who are considering signing death warrants or refusing to issue commutations to life imprisonment.

Even while being murdered by the cowardly executioners of Florida, led by chief executioner Gov. Charlie Crist, he maintained his dignity. He could have lashed out at this cruel and unjust system. Instead, he expressed profound remorse for the crime he had committed more than 25 years ago, and said Shema Yisrael, the sacred Biblical text recited in the daily prayer (see my commentary here) and, more poignantly, recited by Jewish martyrs throughout the ages as they were being executed. As reported by Tampa Bay Online:

In a final statement, Grossman expressed remorse to the family of Peggy Park, the Florida wildlife officer he beat and shot to death more than 25 years ago.

“I would like to extend my heartfelt remorse to the victim’s family,” Grossman said. “I fully regret everything that happened that night, everything that was done, whether I remember everything or not. I accept responsibility.”

“I would like to say a prayer,” the 45-year-old man added, then, lying on a gurney, hands strapped to arm boards and with needles in both arms, he began reciting a Jewish prayer called the Schma.

It is the most sacred prayer in Judaism and the first prayer that Jewish children learn. Among its verses: “The Lord is our God, God is one.”

This utterly infuriating execution diminishes the value of human life. For those of us who are opposed to the state-sponsored and governor-stamped death squads, it will take a while to gather our thoughts. But we must redouble our efforts to abolish this primitive, barbaric (in constitutional lingo “cruel and unusual”) punishment that has no place in a modern, enlightened society. How long will the United States remain in the the moral cesspool into which it has descended together with Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia?

Hold Governor Charlie Crist Accountable

Of course, the death squads will not be eliminated from our system in a quick fix. It will take significant grassroots activism and astute political skills to remove this embarrassing stain. Certainly, one necessary ingredient must be holding executioners accountable.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist must pay the ultimate political price for his crime. His rush to murder Martin Grossman, denying him even the modest 60-day stay that was justified to present a fully-supported clemency request based on new evidence regarding mitigating circumstances, was no doubt politically-motivated. Accordingly, that’s where he needs to be punished.

Crist is in a primary battle to win the Republican nomination for the upcoming Senate race in Florida. I hope the thousands of leaders and ordinary citizens that organized and pleaded to save Grossman’s life will devote their energy to ensure he never again gets elected to any public office. It’s not too early to mass mobilize to defeat his political aspirations and foil his future political plans. That would certainly send one powerful message to all the other politicians out there who are considering signing death warrants or refusing to issue commutations to life imprisonment.