This ministry needs your financial support! Donate now!
Posted by Anthony on January 5, 2010
Kevin Hundt of La Crosse, WI seems to think so:
Atheists do not have “more” say than religious people, we just don’t want government (public-owned) resources to be used to promote religion. Religious people already have tax-free churches; if you want statues and monuments, you can put them there. No one is demanding anyone “hide” their religious belongings – when you all put up those 10 commandments signs in your yards, did anyone complain? No, that’s your property. Put up whatever you want there. But government property is my property, so keep your backward magic superstition off my lawn. [Emphasis in the original newspaper]
This logic, very common among evangelical atheists of the Dan Barker/Freedom from Religion type, is flawed at so many levels, paragraphs could be devoted to refuting each phrase. For tonight, I’ll just settle on making the simple observation that government property, public land, is not only Kevin Hundt’s. It is also mine.
Perhaps a refresher in the Constitution is in order: Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on May 8, 2008
Tonight at their council meeting the trustees of the village of Holmen voted unanimously to approve the sale of a tiny piece of property with a star on it- which can be lighted as a cross during Easter- for $600. The property had been appraised at $100.00. Six times the appraisal value might seem a little odd… but the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association had bid somewhere in the realm of $1,200 for the property, vowing to remove the cross for sure, and in the case of the FFRF, the star as well (we can suppose the star constitutes an establishment of the religion of astrology by the town of Holmen).
I recently discussed the issue in this entry about the Holmen Cross and the most recent developments so I will just briefly comment now.
This whole move was done in order to mimic the route that La Crosse took. In that incident, the FFRF sued on account of a 10 Commandment monument, and the town of La Crosse sold the piece of property it was on to a local private group.
The problem with that approach, as with Holmen adopting it, is that the residual issue still remains: is it constitutional or not for a city to have on its property religious symbols or monuments? Does it or does it not constitute an ‘establishment of religion’? Is the most important thing really merely retaining the displays? It may be a legal avenue to preserve the display to sell off 50 square sections of city parks and property but do we really want thousands of ‘free expression’ zones like tiny islands?
Here is the thing: The FFRF and the AHA have both suggested that they might yet sue. Perhaps the village of Holmen will win that suit. Yet by dodging the issue, atheistic activists will continue to be able to harass cities and towns across the country. If you’re going to get sued anyway, you may as well have taken a route which would have really achieved something substantial. Will we continue to be a nation where atheists say ‘jump!’ and small governments reply, ‘How high?’
So now we shall see what comes of things. Such irony it would be if the FFRF sues Holmen (on the grounds that declining the higher bid was poor stewardship of public resources, or something like that) and wins! The star would come down after all on perfectly mundane legal grounds, with no precedent at all to show for it! We shall see.
All my entries on the Holmen Star issue.
Posted by Anthony on January 7, 2008
One of my contentions in regards to the Constitution’s views on the so-called separation of Church and State is that the language of the Constitution simply does not support the steps we’ve seen by groups like Dan Barker’s Freedom From Religion Foundation. Here is the language:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
I have italicized a very important first word. Congress, of course, represents the Federal law-making body. Presumably, individual states could make such laws, or even school boards! By strange judicial voodoo, the 14th Amendment is used to ‘incorporate’ certain aspects of the Bill of Rights so that it applies also to the states and not just the Federal government. One might think the logical analog to ‘Congress’ would be the state’s congress, still leaving it open that local communities could flirt with religion, but no!
Interestingly, the ‘incorporation’ logic has not been extended to the entire Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment which clearly states that the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ has so far escaped the long arm of the 14th Amendment. One has the sneaking suspicion that this is because Liberals only want to extend the incorporation principle so long as it advances their agenda. At any rate, this article from the Associated Press crossed my desk, and it just takes the cake. Read the rest of the entry… »
