Comments on: Local Government Shouldn’t Be Serving God

By: josh

josh — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:09:04 +0000

all i’m saying is that it’s not there… and i don’t think that podunk michigan constitutes congress. freedom of religion is the idea that you will not be persecuted for your religion or lack there of. are you really so sensitive that a mission statement harasses you in such a way that you feel it necessary to file a lawsuit? here’s an idea… if you live there, vote for someone else next election year. make it an issue in the political spectrum. if you don’t live there, then why care? political correctness is a drug that we continue to shoot into our veins and pretty soon it will destroy us…. i would 100% be behind you if we were talking about the inquisition here, but we are simply not.

By: HappyNat

HappyNat — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:06:49 +0000

Really, Josh? *sigh* Don’t tell me just because the actual words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the constitution doesn’t mean the First Amendment doesn’t apply to such situations.

By: C.E. Moore

C.E. Moore — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:27:43 +0000

Ben,

Email me at thechristianmanifesto@gmail.com if you would like to continue a dialogue. I did not originally answer your hypotheticals because it show a classic ignorance of old and new covenant theology in terms of the law. But, if you’d like to go back and forth in ever-increasing emails, that’d be fine. I will devote as much time to it as I have available to me. That way, we can debate on an even keel.

And I do thank you for the explanation of the Fourteenth Amedment and the debate surrounding it. I will sit down and discuss it with the history department here and think on it.

C. E. Moore

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:47:25 +0000

where in the constitution does it say anything about the separation of church and state?

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:46:31 +0000

C.E. Moore, could you please answer my hypotheticals?

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/10/dueling-billboards/#comment-126316

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:58:04 +0000

Although the town is clearly in the wrong constitutionally and legally, I can see the merits of both sides of the question of whether it’s worth it to come in as an outsider to make them clean up their act. On one hand as some Chinese general said long ago, “some towns are not worth taking,” and the resentment and bitterness generated has a cost. On the other hand, small town America is where all the other old prejudices held out long after the rest of the nation had abolished them both in spirit and in law. The rural South would not have finally rid themselves of racist segregation on their own. It took federal intervention in the 1960′s to drag them kicking and screaming into the 20th century. If we pass up another “town not worth taking,” then we’re preserving one more safe haven for this kind of sanctioned bigotry to hide and wait, like a dormant virus holed up in some obscure part of the the body waiting to erupt again.

By: Skeptigator

Skeptigator — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:33:35 +0000

I’m with BelleSouth, you’ve got to pick and choose your battles and if an outside group like ffrf goes in and starts picking on these small towns there doing more harm than good.

Changing peoples attitudes towards non-theists is about “changing attitudes” not municipal mission statements. This just creates knee-jerk reactions, that simply solidifies support because people perceive themselves as being attacked.

I know ffrf says, “On behalf of Hudsonville taxpayers…” but that about as ambiguous as you can get. These kinds of mission statements/decrees or whatever don’t “pick my pocket, or break my leg”. Atheists have a PR problem and this doesn’t help. I’m ranting, I’ll shut up now.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:30:01 +0000

Maybe I’m wrong, but this seems to be the case historically and I freely admit that I don’t know what has changed from a legal standpoint that disallows this practice.

The Fourteenth amendment extended the Bill of Rights to all other U.S. laws.

“More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgement by state leaders, and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgement by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means, of course, has been the subject of great debate; and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

By: C.E. Moore

C.E. Moore — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:10:41 +0000

Correct me if I’m wrong, but state and local governments have always been permitted to be inherently religious if they so desire. The federal government, though not always living up to its own ideals, is not supposed to be religious. But, certain states were created as havens for particular religious outlooks and peoples. Maybe I’m wrong, but this seems to be the case historically and I freely admit that I don’t know what has changed from a legal standpoint that disallows this practice.

By: Old Beezle

Old Beezle — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:41:16 +0000

I enjoy how the ‘almighty’ is invoked to help provide municipal services. Is that who I should send my electric bill payment to?