I have long been amazed how often some conservative Christians stir the pot with a warning that there is about to be a great campaign to repress their religious freedoms in America. Using the late atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair (whom I interviewed four time during her lifetime) as the poster child as the bogeyman that can wreak havoc, they build their case of government crackdown on religion by circulating an email that needs a million signatures by tomorrow or the FCC will bring darkness.

The world’s most shining award, the Nobel Peace Prize, has gone to President Barack Obama.

 Predicatably, American right-wingers dismissed it and found every way to diminish the honor.   We have already shown that Obama can do nothing to please the extreme right whose only goal is to bring him down no matter what good the president might bring to America and beyond.

 They are like the surly dogs that bark and howl at everything. It has become laughable now to watch these  goons:  how they condemned Obama a month ago for wanting to address school children about excellence and staying in school; how the president made a well-meaning trip to Copenhagen, Denmark, to tout Chicago’s bid for the Olympics (when heads of state of other countries had done the same); and now their knee-jerk clamoring to deprecate the Nobel Prize, saying Obama had no accomplishments to merit it.

The Nobel Committeee  cited Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”   Much is being made about how closely after the President’s inauguration came last January to the deadline for nominating candidates.  “How could so new a president have done anything to justify such an award?, ” his critics say.

Yes, the committee, heavily weighted in Europe,  was heartened by the refreshing new attitude and tone that the world has been witnessing  in the White House.  Gone was George W. Bush,  whose reckless and bullying actions in international relations, had sullied America’s reputation for eight years.  So Obama’s statements calling for multilateral global inititatives, a strong push to reduce nuclear armaments, efforts to get Israel and Palestinian talks going and his using  less hostile language in all levels of diplomacy set well with the rest of the world.  Not to mention his speaking skills and ability to project hope.

I had the chance to meet three Nobel Peace Prize winners through the years:  Norman Borlaug (1970), the agronomist who was the architect of the Green Revolution;  Mother Teresa of Calcutta  (1979); and the Dalai Lama (1989).  Once I received a short personal note from Holocaust writer Eli Wiesel, the 1986 winner.

The Nobel Prize group is so impressive. Some of the most famous names:  Albert Schweitzer, Ralph Bunche, Lech Welesa, Bishop Desmond Tutu, Anwar Sadat with Menachem Begin, Jimmy Carter, Martin Luther King, Mikhail Gorbachev, Linus Pauling, Elihu Roo, Henry Kissinger, Al Gore and Theodore Roosevelt.

Obama was humble and reserved about the award, cognizant that his critics would say he did not deserve it — certainly not yet.  He wisely used it to say the award is for all those in the world earnestly working for peace on the many fronts in which he was leading the U.S.  He was wise to announced his financial prize was going to charity.

Such an award typically goes to old people whose body of work is clear.  The president has won the big one, so what is left?  Obviously, accomplising some of the major tasks that this nation and planet need accomplished.   Many who have earned awards  ”before their time” get a kick in the pants from winning it, and it gives them the license and go ahead to do great things to live up to their prize.

As it looks now, ex-communicated Monsignor Dale Fushek will be getting his way.  It seems he  will be able to take on his accusers of sexual misconduct one at a time. The five  males bringing complaints  won’t be ganging up to give “critical mass” to their cases and, together, try to show a pattern of actions by the clergyman.

It has been more than a year since San Tan Justice of the Peace Sam Goodman rejected the Maricopa County prosecutors’ arguments for one trial, but Prosecutor Barbara Marshall  appealed that ruling, arguing the five men’s stories and account needed to be shared in a single trial to prove Fushek’s pattern of sexual motivation. A Maricopa County District Court judge upheld that, and an appeal was filed.  Marshall voiced publicly that Goodman’s decision, if upheld, meant “our case has been cut off at the knees.   Late in September, Marshall and her team were informed the Court of Appeals had denied the requested reviews.

So the case goes back to Goodman’s court.  Fushek, who had ascended to be the second most powerful clergymen in the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, as vicar general under former Bishop Thomas O’Brien, will be tried before separate  juries.  In 2007, he successfully won an Arizona Supreme Court ruling that allowed him to have jury trials, not trials before a judge. Goodman had previously ruled the trials would take place   in front of  his bench with his ruling on Fushek’s guilt or innocence. But Fushek successfully pressed for his own trials,  noting that he could be labeled a sex offender if convicted in a judge-ruled case.  And that could doom his ministry to families and children.

Fushek was first accused almost  five years ago, but the  long litany of rules, appeals and motions has stretched out disposition of the cases.  On Feb. 5, 2009, the Maricopa County Superior Court upheld Fushek’s case for  five trials to resolve the seven misdemeanor churges, brought by men who were teens in alleged incidents between 1984 and 1993.

 Together, they represent one count of assault, one of indecent exposure and five counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Maricopa Judge Joseph Kreamer ruled that the series of incidents were separate and that it would be unfair to bundle them together  as if they were all related.   “The court does not believe that the alleged offenses are based on the same conduct , or are otherwie connected in their commission,” he had determined.  Kreamer said the incidents took place across the expanse of almost a decade, in various settings  and were not related close enough.

That jibed with Goodman’s original decision. Goodman had decided the five trials would be booked from the oldest  incidents to the newest. Each trial would follow the other  “as soon as practical following the conclusion” of each previous trial.

   The first is contributing to the delinquency of a minor complaint by Carl Mawhinney, who accuses Fushek of  “numerous sexually related discussions” about his sex life betwen 1984 and 1988. It would be followed by a trial, on charges of assault and contributing  to the delinquency of  a minor between 1985 and 1987, brought by Marc Tropio. The third trial would involve charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and indecent exposure, between 1987 and 1990, brought by Marc Olson.  The fourth trial would involve contributing to the delinquency of a minor between 1989 and 1991 where Doug Cordano contends Fushek  discussed his sexual activities. The final trial would focus on a count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor between 1991 and 1993 brought by Russell Swingle.   Should the first case end in acquittal, motions to dismiss the remander are almost certain.  Will it be a case of “separate and conquer”?

Fushek was one of the highest ranked officials charged in the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic Church. In late 2007, Fushek, while on a paid leave of absence pending resolution of the charges, started a non-denominatinal church, the Praise and Worship Center in Mesa, with another former, now married, priest, Mark Dippre.  It was in defiance of orders of  Bishop Thomas Olmsted who had ordered Fushek to sit out ministry pending resolution of his cases.  Olmsted subsequently excommunicated both priests.

Goodman has scheduled a hearing for 9 a.m. Nov. 6 for the sides to come together to move forward on laying out terms for the trials.

The Arizona Court of Appeals has decided not to review special