Posted 1 year, 5 months ago in 
Loading ...
This recent fiasco with the 13 atheists is showing itself to be much more than a mere “letter of concern” about the city not following the letter of the law in their prayer before meetings.
Why are they having ongoing meetings with the City Council (and why is the city kowtowing to their wishes for these meetings)?
Now they have made a list of demands with a pointed threat of lawsuit if they are not satisfied with the city’s decision! Why isn’t the city merely reading their letter and checking into its legal standing?
Remember Bill Hugenburg? He is the same man who also called in the ACLU for the Christian response display to the earlier homosexual display. He and Landman were “on the same page” then too.
The city needs to keep in mind that the majority of residents here do not agree with the “religious” beliefs of the atheists and they, too, are capable of writing letters, calling for meetings and even instituting lawsuits if warranted.
Wake up Grand Junction and don’t allow yourselves to be held hostage by these misled individuals!
CAROL ANDERSON
Whitewater
54 Responses to “Why is the city listening to the atheist group?”
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Batter up!
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 3:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“This recent fiasco with the 13 atheists is showing itself to be much more than a mere “letter of concern” about the city not following the letter of the law in their prayer before meetings.”
It is only becoming so because the religious members of the community continue to misunderstand what is actually happening.
“Why are they having ongoing meetings with the City Council (and why is the city kowtowing to their wishes for these meetings)?”
The city does this with groups who have issues. It’s called discussion, and it often solves the problems. And the city is not “kowtowing.” They simply recognize that the atheists are right.
“Now they have made a list of demands with a pointed threat of lawsuit if they are not satisfied with the city’s decision!”
If there is a lawsuit, it won’t be filed by the WCA.
“Why isn’t the city merely reading their letter and checking into its legal standing?”
That’s what the meetings with the city are for.
“Remember Bill Hugenburg? He is the same man who also called in the ACLU for the Christian response display to the earlier homosexual display. He and Landman were “on the same page” then too.”
So two people agree. Was there a point here?
“The city needs to keep in mind that the majority of residents here do not agree with the “religious” beliefs of the atheists and they, too, are capable of writing letters, calling for meetings and even instituting lawsuits if warranted.”
Have at it. That’s how the system works. The city still has to follow the law, however, no matter how many people want them to continue to break it.
“Wake up Grand Junction and don’t allow yourselves to be held hostage by these misled individuals!”
Unfortunately, the misled ones are those under the impression that the city can simply continue as they have been.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Going, going, gone! Way to keep your eye on the ball, Scott.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
toaaronuu — you’re making me think about pancakes now. mmmmmmm.
I just don’t know how it would hurt anyone if our city did not bring up Jesus at the beginning of their meetings. Do they think God going to get mad or something? That I don’t get.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
They don’t at the Wednesday meetings, and nothing seems to happen. Someone should look into whether they make better decisions on Wednesday or not.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Smiles, ash. I was thinking more along the lines of peanuts, hotdogs and beer, but pancakes sound ok. And the answer to your question can be summed up in one word: Dominionism. Wikipedia has a good article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wednesday is probably the day they get roundabouts passed.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Unless God likes roundabouts…
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, seen from the sky they do look kinda pretty…
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
toaaronuu,
Why don’t you explain the meaning of post #1, carefully?
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
You are absolutely right. The atheists chose an election year because they felt it gave them an advantage. The fly in that ointment is one person, one vote. They want to play politics, lets play.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 4:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What advantage would an election year have in an Constitutionality issue?
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 5:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
american_patriot …. I am also confused.
You think them saying Jesus / not saying Jesus is something that should be on the ballot?
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “What advantage would an election year have in an Constitutionality issue?”
They either cannot or will not understand the basic constitutional issue, Scott no matter how often it is explained. They also do not understand that it is not an issue of the majority rules; the Constitution as interpreted by the courts guarantees certain rights whether or not the majority agrees. Indeed until quite recently in many parts of the South, the majority of voters would have stripped rights from black people. And finally they do not understand that it is not an issue of Christians versus Atheists. Jewish people have exactly the same problem with the Christian prayer at publicly supported meetings. Indeed so does every other religion. They just plain don’t get it!
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think that’s what toaaronuu meant by “Batter up” … here we go round and round again. And I agree with Class. I have never seen so many people (who are presumably smarter than rocks, as they are able to write a legible letter to the editor), who are completely incapable of grasping these most basic concepts.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 5:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s right. You just don’t get it. You are about to get a lesson in how it is done. From the standpoint of the election outcome, I can’t think of a better time than an election year. This issue is what is known, in political circles, as a fetcher. Just watch the votes come rolling in.
Thank you Atheists.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 5:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you toaaronuu for your explanation. When did you change your user name.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 6:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now I’m really getting worried. I agree with both Ash and Class on this one.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 6:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ap,
Who do you think is intended to benefit from this “fetcher?”
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullish: I am getting worried too. That’s twice today with me and you.
american_patriot … Yeah I don’t always agree with you, but usually at least can understand what you are saying. I can’t think of who will benefit on the ballot by “the atheists” having taken on this issue. Maybe Rowland? But all of the Jesus freaks were going to vote for her anyway.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, invocations prior to meetings has absolutely nothing to do with religion. That is, unless one wants to use “religion” for political purposes (something which AP admitted to in #6), a diversion division by the “religious wrong.”
It goes back to one letter writer this week who stated that religion cannot be separated from the “state”. And, as I have previously stated, it is because some of our local theocrats don’t want to. They might lose their control over the local population if it did. It has always been that way, is now, and will always be the case until every individual “buckles down” and does some serious thinking on their own about this issue.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 7:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
american_patriot: “Thank you toaaronuu for your explanation. When did you change your user name.”
Well, excuse me for jumping in and speculating on what I thought was meant by it. Boy do you seem cranky today.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 8:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
First let me say that politics is the ultimate poker game. Fetchers as a strategy have been used since the beginning of time. The problem with them is that they have intended and unintended consequences. Presuming that the purpose of the atheists choosing this particular time frame for their prayer issue is the belief that it will benefit them. Then what we must deal with here is the unintended consequences. Can you think of any other issue more polarizing than prayer? Now think of the demographics involved. The western slope is heavily conservative Republican. The presidential candidate, John McCain is running as a centrist Republican. His problem is that part of his base, the conservative Republicans don’t support him, mainly as a result of the amnesty issue. For that one issue alone, many conservatives were going to sit out this election. Since the conservative group makes up about 30% of the Republican party, he needs to find a way to bring them back into the fold. Now apply all I have just said to the local races, City Council, County Commissioner, etc. Elections are won and lost on miscalculations. The prayer issue is the one issue that will bring the conservative Republicans to the voting booth. And their record is one of high turnout, when they are motivated. And chances are, when they vote, they will vote a straight Republican ticket, with the possible exception of the presidential race. Now the atheists may win their fight on legal grounds. That is their intended consequence. The unintended consequence is that Republican candidates on the western slope just got a 15 or 20 percentage point jump in vote count. Most elections are won or lost by less than 10% of the vote. Do the math.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 8:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Laitres,
You really do need to get out more often. Religion has always been a part of politics. I don’t want to bore you, so I’ll list just a few examples. I think you can do the extrapolation from those. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jerry Falwell, prayer in schools, President Kennedy as a Catholic, scopes monkey trial, great right wing Christian conspiracy, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, need I continue. It would be totally naive to discount religion as a factor in politics. To do so, is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Voting is a very personal, and, for most people, thoughtful activity. When they pull the curtain, they tend to get conservative. Most people don’t like to take chances when their future is involved. Much like Wall Street, when you are playing with your own money, the caution factor kicks in.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Okay, I see your reasoning, but there are a couple of points I’d like to make.
First, you are assuming that the atheist’s timing is intentional. What if it isn’t?
Second, if the atheist’s case does go to litigation, which seems unlikely giving the city manager’s recent comments, it will take years. It will most certainly not be completed before the election in November.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 8:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No offense meant, ashhugger. I was simply trying to point out that he had not answered. Your opinion, as wrong as it may be, is always welcome. God, I hope you have got a sense of humor. Cranky, Oh hell no. I just went and filled up my gas tank, and I was right next to this club cab duely at the Diesel pump. He had an earth first bumper sticker, a respect life license plate, a marijuana leaf decal in the back window, and the other side of his rear window was a sign that read ” Hands off ANWAR.” The only laugh I’ve had all day was his complaining about the cost of a fill-up ($167.32 was his total). Boy, did he go green.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 8:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Second, if the atheist’s case does go to litigation, which seems unlikely giving the city manager’s recent comments, it will take years. It will most certainly not be completed before the election in November.
Naw, it won’t go to litigation. The City Manager knows a losing cause when she sees it. The law is completely against the current practice.
Scott: Do we know that all of the group of protestors are indeed atheists as they have been labeled?
Beautiful sunset outside just now folks.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 8:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
All that is public is that the 13 signers were members of the Western Colorado Atheists, although I gather that the group is now calling itself “Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers.”
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 8:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Yeah, baby, but the issue is in play right now. Witness the number of angry letters you’ve seen posted on the prayer issue. If you were a politician, running in a heavily conservative, Republican area, which side of that issue would you jump on? No matter the outcome of the prayer issue, it is a dead bang winner for the candidates who support prayer. Politics is about winning. Do you know why snakes won’t bite attorneys and politicians? Answer: professional courtesy.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 9:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks AP … yes I do have a sense of humor, laughed out loud at your gas pump story.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 9:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
On the other hand, since the likely outcome is that the prayer will be at least modified, if not halted, the incumbents will probably seen as having “caved in” to the atheists and will be voted out whether they supported prayer or not.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 9:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What if the Rev. Jeremiah Wright were invited to give the opening prayer?
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 9:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
american_patriot “The western slope is heavily conservative Republican”
Does anyone have a link to an unbiased webpage source (preferably Mesa County itself) as to the latest, actual number of registered Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in Mesa County?
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott
The answer to your question is according to how bold they are. If they threaten to resign or resign over this issue, then the seat that they presently occupy and whether they keep it is irrelevant. Their name will be identified as opposition to the atheists, and as poster boy, they are a shoe in for a higher office. If they stick to their guns, no pun intended, and vote to oppose the atheists, at least in the first round, they will probably be elected. Now you take a good hard look at the city council, and you tell me which councilman will be the first to vote to fold to the atheists(that’s the way the conservatives will see it) and then go right up the line until you have a majority vote. After that, everybody can cave in without consequence. After all, there is no use in whipping a dead dog. It can all be reduced down to an equation, and they did the best they could. They opposed it, but they were outvoted. That’s politics. It has nothing to do with prayer, it has to do with the “issue of prayer”. Am I being truthful enough for everyone out there? Now my detractors can get in line, and start writing posts that begin, You said. Go for it.
Future Quest, you can bet your booties that every politician has a copy. There are over 70,000 new voters that work for the gas and oil industry on the western slope, and believe me they are registered voters.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 10:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
The thing is, it’s not really a voting issue. There is little question that the prayer needs to change. If the council changes it, which they almost have to, they will be seen as caving. I don’t see any of them resigning over this, so the council as a group will have “given in to the minority.”
If, for some reason, they decide not to change it, they will be opening the city up for a lawsuit (probably not from the WCA, but thanks to Chuck Norris this issue has been brought to the national level) and they will almost certainly lose. In the meantime, the city will be paying out lots of money for something that the majority of people probably don’t see as THAT important.
For the conservatives who are opposed to changing the prayer, I don’t see how they are going to be happy with the city council either way, and it’s not because of the atheists. It’s the U.S. Supreme Court. (They’ll blame the atheists anyway, of course.)
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 10:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Is that the party line or your own spin? What you are ignoring or at least trying to ignore is, for the conservative voter, what is the alternative? It is kind of like me saying, I don’t like living on this earth, but what is the alternative? About 85% of the people don’t vote for anyone, they vote for the lesser of two evils. That’s your miscalculation.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 10:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
That’s the thing that conservatives don’t seem to understand - there really isn’t a choice. What the city council is doing is unconstitutional. They can’t vote to decide if it is legal or not. All they can do is vote on how to change it to bring it within the guidelines the Supreme Court has established - and that change will be seen as caving.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 10:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “It’s the U.S. Supreme Court. (They’ll blame the atheists anyway, of course.)
True. But AP’s musings and ramblings are almost totally beside the point. We already have now and are going to get in the near term future right wing conservative politicians of the Josh Penry ilk, because of the current make up of the electorate in this part of the State. This will change as the dinosaurs die off and new voters continue to move into the area. But for the moment, anything that happens with respect to the prayer issue is irrelevant with respect to the effects it will have for voting in this County. So I say go for it! Nail these jerks for their illegalities.
The conservative vote in this county will be increasingly negated in the rest of the state anyway (as it was in the last election. And there is increasing evidence that Colorado is going to be among the “blue” states in the next.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 11:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Ok, Scott. For the sake of argument, let’s just accept your premise. Since we are talking about conservative Republican voters here, and which way they will vote. Will they vote for the Republican who by your scenario was forced by law to, as you say, cave in, or will they vote for the Democrat who they see as the candidate supported by the atheists? That’s a no-brainer?
You need to stop listening to Class of 52, or at least realize that what he describes is his wish list, and has nothing to do with the real world western slope, real time hurdles that Democrats will face in the coming election. It’s what it was, it’s what it is and it is what it shall be. History tells us the first, the voter rolls tell us the second, and the third is nothing more than an extrapolation of the first two. Tell me Scott, if you were wagering your own money, and this thing was a horse race, based on the evidence, where would you put your money? Once again, it is not about the prayer issue, it is about the political realities brought to you by the prayer issue.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
The conservative Republicans will vote Republican no matter what. That’s a given, regardless of the prayer issue. Whether they vote for the incumbent who caved or a new Republican candidate is another issue, however.
Posted June 11th, 2008 at 11:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I agree that is a given. But what we were talking about wasn’t how they would vote, but rather what would motivate them to go to the polls and vote. What you would describe as right wing, Christian, Republican voters, have historically turned out at the polls in greater numbers than their opposition, especially on the western slope. One of the problems that Democratic candidates face, Bernie Buescher notwithstanding, if part of their base consists of young Democratic voters is low turnout. This is just a fact, and not necessarily a reflection on the motivation of young Democratic voters. Try not to view this as a criticism. I suggest that you talk to a Democratic office holder or candidate. They will verify this to be true. Have a good night. Nice talking to you.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 6:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
I’m not denying this is true. And you’re right in saying that the prayer issue might motivate a few to come out and vote that otherwise wouldn’t.
I just don’t see that as a major problem, and not one that would be a factor in most people’s decision as to when this was brought up.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 6:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52,
You are starting to backslide on me. Now you gave your word that you weren’t going to talk me to anymore. It’s embarrassing for me to have to keep reminding you of that. With each post you creep a little bit closer and a little closer. Since we have been through this before, I recognize the symptoms. Pretty soon it is going to just well up and come bustin’ out. Your fingers will take on a will of their own, typing American Patriot, over and over. I’m here to help. For the sake of your dignity, check yourself before you wreck yourself. Remember, everyone is watching.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 7:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
It doesn’t have to be many Scott, it only has to be one more than the opposition. It is a form of majority rule. and it depends on whether you consider a loss to be a problem. It only takes one, Scott, just one.
As for the timing of the prayer issue, it couldn’t be any better if I had done it myself. Now, why didn’t I think of that?
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 7:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
But what is the outcome going to change? It certainly won’t let them continue sectarian prayers, and if I’m not mistaken, the Republicans already have six out of seven seats on the council, don’t they?
So all that your scenario will accomplish is a continuation of the Republican domination of the council, and they still won’t be having sectarian prayers.
What’s being lost?
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 7:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
What’s being lost?
Oh, not much, just a couple of Democratic seats on the council maybe. You’re right, Scott, this is a dead bang winner, for the Dems, and that is why all their candidates are going to want to be identified with the effort to ban prayer.
Keep up the good work. Eye of the Tiger. Attention to detail. Jolly good show.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 7:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Who’s trying to ban prayer? It’s not the atheists. The council has a constitutional right to have a prayer, and the atheists have acknowledged that. What’s unconstitutional is the sectarian nature of the prayer. A minor, yet important, detail.
And I think it’s only one democratic seat. Your worst case scenario just doesn’t seem to be much worse than things are now.
It’s sad that the perception is that upholding the law is seen as a sure way not to get elected.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 8:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: So all that your scenario will accomplish is a continuation of the Republican domination of the council, and they still won’t be having sectarian prayers.
What’s being lost?”
These are good points Scott. We both have pointed out that the prayer issue is not going to change the way people vote in Western Colorado where temporarily there is a local majority of right wing republicans. AP’s mutterings are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
AP is also just whistling in the dark with respect to voter turnout. The Obama campaign has brought out millions of new voters among the very young and college educated folk. My own daughter at the University of Oregon has commented on the increased political activity on the campus and the enormous interest in supporting Obama there. Some of that is bound to spill over into even Mesa County. AP and others might well be surprised at the voter turnout here next November and it may not be the conservatives that they expect.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 8:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Works for me. You heard it here first, Republicans. The Obamaman supporters are mobilizing a maximum effort. There’s not a moment to lose. Let’s all get out there and make sure all those conservatives get to the voting booth. We all need to spread the importance that every vote counts. Talk about it in your prayer chain calls. Vote often and bring a friend. Yup, that works for me.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 8:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So which might affect the election results more?
The few extra conservatives that may come out due to the prayer issue, or the long-silent young Democratic voters who support Obama.
Sorry, AP. I just don’t see the prayer issue having much effect.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As ‘interesting’ as all this rhetoric has been, I have to add my little bit - first, I am a “Jesus Freak” as so many of you like to call Christians, and second, NO I will not be voting for Janet Rowland, and finally, (as they breath a sigh of relief) you all seem to think that you know what Christians believe. . . mostly because of the many bad examples that you see and hear. They are, by far, not good examples of Christianity. (can hardly wait for the response to that) In Matthew 6: vs 5-8 begins with “also, when you pray, you must not be as the hypocrites; because they like to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the broad ways to be visible to men..” etc. etc. . . And, ironically, the very people who profess to not believe in God are actually helping to exact what He has already asked, to not pray in public, but privately. O.K. thats all I have to say. . .
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
pashunpls,
Thanks for your input. It’s nice to hear from a Christian who disagrees with the vocal minority.
You can be a Christian without being a “Jesus Freak.” At least for me, “Jesus Freak” refers to the super-conservative variety of Christian, those who see any disagreement as a personal attack. They are a minority of Christians, but a loud one. I myself was once a Christian, but I was never what I would have described as a Jesus Freak, even then.
Having been a Christian (for over twenty years) I also think I have a pretty good idea of what Christians think, and I agree that the loudest ones are not the best examples.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The problem with nearly all the responses to this discussion is the failure to recognize the underlying cause.
It is all a matter of choices made by people.
In this case, the ‘atheists’, all 13 of them, made choices that ‘marginalized’ themselves.
These were different choices than those made by the other several thousand atheists who go through life here in the valley that are not ‘marginalized’.
These 13, made choices deliberately to drag sympathy from others, and no other reason.
ms landman has been weeping since she first appeared in the Western Slope, and she finally got another dozen to make equally marginalizing’ decisions to help her in her continual gnashing of teeth.
Enter an attorney that specializes in amplifying the whining, and guess who gets attention for their own poor decisions.
If these 13 are truly ‘marginalized’, they are so ‘marginalized’ due to their decisions and not because somebody prayed aloud.
Posted June 12th, 2008 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So the fact that the city council is doing something unconstitutional has nothing to do with it, right?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.