Posted 3 months, 21 days ago in 
Loading ...
I am not sure why speculation about Bill Hugenberg’s motives was included in The Daily Sentinel’s editorial on invocations at meetings of the Mesa County Commission. I know Bill to be an extraordinarily decent human being and a superb lawyer. However, neither his character nor the views of the local atheist’s organization are relevant to the current controversy.
It is the United States Constitution, not Bill or the atheists, that controls whether invocations are permissible at public meetings. I am surprised that the Sentinel sees no problem with public officials who are indifferent to the demands of the law, or feel themselves exempt from the standards that apply to others.
I was similarly dismayed when the Sentinel applauded Janet Rowland’s response to a question about invocations when she appeared with David Kearsley in Fruita. She bragged about never having backed down to a bully, while Mr. Kearsley displayed some concern for the requirements of the law.
Commissioner Rowland’s answer conveniently avoided the issue of whether she was legally right or wrong in the position she was defending. She does not seem to understand that the issue is not who criticizes her, but whether they are right. I know that Dave Kearsley also stands up for what is right, but he also knows how to admit and correct errors. Both qualities are essential in a public official.
IRENE MAY
Grand Junction
157 Responses to “Sentinel gets it wrong”
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 6:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Irene May,
Perhaps Mr. Hugenberg’s motives sparked speculation because they were suspect. As a spokesperson for the local atheist group, Mr. Hugenberg has been grandstanding for some time. He hopes to accomplish, with his thinly veiled threats of suing public officials what he cannot accomplish through litigation. Otherwise he would have already filed his case. The common sense thread between Mr. Hugenberg and Mr. Kearsley is established as a result of Mr. Kearsley’s original opposition to invocation as practiced by the GJ City Council. That opposition gained him a foothold of support from local atheists. When the political pitfalls of that position became clear to Mr. Kearsley at the Fruita debate, where his opponent , incumbent County Commissioner Janet Rowland received thunderous applause for her public announcement that she supported invocation, Mr. Kearsley’s position evolved with his most recent letter to the editor proclaiming that he had found Jesus, and was in favor of ecumenical prayer, which is an investment banker’s way of saying ‘it’s ok to pray if you don’t mention Jesus’. No doubt he was trying to create the belated public impression that he was no longer the atheist supported candidate. His change of heart, coming on the heels of Mesa County Fair Board’s cancellation of prayer services, and then subsequent reversal, along with Mr. Hugenbers’s publicity stunts on behalf of the atheist’s group have created a great deal of concern and interest by the voters of Mesa County. And I suspect that is why the Daily Sentinel editorial was published. Because the inquiring minds of Mesa County voters want to know.
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 7:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The point you seem to be missing here AP is that Rowland is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, as Irene May a former professor of Constitutional Law and active player in the Washington DC scene just told you. You continue to ignore that point. Somehow you admire this shallow demagogue, Janet Rowland who tries to mask her shortcomings by pandering to the right wing Christians in Grand Junction rather than Mr. Kearsley who wishes to follow the law. OK, that’s your choice. And Rowland might win the primary since there are a lot of one issue minded folks in this county. But ultimately she will lose the war since her stance is contrary to the constitution. I hope somebody challenges her on it in a legal sense, perhaps the Jewish community since her illegal prayer is offensive to them. I would support such a challenge with substantial funds.
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 7:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ooooohhhh,….
golly gee, I’m skeered.
class, since you vouched for her, that makes any credentials she may have had, extremely suspect.
Mostly because you are a proven liar, slanderer, and just in general useless old man with no sense of Honesty, Honor, or Integrity.
So whatever this friend of yours may be, you just destroyed any credibility she may have had.
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 7:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow, Class, what you just described is an opinion. The Grand Junction City Council’s use of invocation has not been adjudicated and in spite of your repeated pronouncements, it probably will not be. If the atheists had a case, they would have filed it. And until they do, and there is a court decision, then all you are presenting are opinions. And no matter the origin they remain just opinions. Why don’t you take the opportunity to put your money behind the atheists effort, as well as your soul. And oh BTW, just in case you haven’t heard, Mr. Kearsley is opposing incumbent Commissioner Janet Rowland, not very successfully, but that has to do with the public opinion and awareness that you have helped to create. that Mr. Kearsley favors the atheist agenda. Well Done.
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 7:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
You’re right. It doesn’t look like there will be a court case and yet, despite the atheists having no case, in your opinion, the city attorney and the members of the council who have made public statements have all agreed that the invocation needs to change.
It looks like the city is the one with no case, and they know it.
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 7:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And for scott…
” “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ”
Again, Mr. Goebbels speaks from the grave and illustrates the plans of the atheists.
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 7:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: The Grand Junction City Council’s use of invocation has not been adjudicated and in spite of your repeated pronouncements, it probably will not be.
Which is like saying Jack admits he murdered Bill but his case has not been adjudicated yet, so we do not know whether or not he broke the law.
Actually you are probably correct that at least some members of the City Council have too much sense to allow this to go further and will modify their practice to bring it within current law.
The County Commission is quite another story altogether since it is a flagrant in your face violation with the Jesus Christ prayer actually being given by certain of the Commissioners themselves.
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 7:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
hey gene?
Does this sound familiar from your mentor?
” “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” ”
It’s from Goebbels, and you are following him true to form.
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 7:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In her letter Ms. May expresses disappointment with the Daily Sentinel position by her statement: “I was similarly dismayed when the Sentinel applauded Janet Rowland’s response to a question about invocations when she appeared with David Kearsley in Fruita.”
It is sad to say but, given the history of Daily Sentinel opinions, no individual should have been either surprised or disappointed. One particular sentence in one editorial, now several years old, that ‘rights’ were ‘abstract notions’ made it quite clear that, unless it is ‘their’ rights which are at stake, they are of no consequence.
If the lady had ever had contact with either the publisher or the editor of that publication, she would know that what takes precedence over everything else is their own bottom line. Everything else can be ignored as it consists merely of theory and idealism. If that means that they have to support officialdom, a political ideology, or the views of their advertisers, that is what they will do. That is the problem when one does not have the proper standard by which one measures ’success’.
The Daily Sentinel has every right to take any position it wants on any issue it chooses. However, if one expects to see anything resembling the product of a serious mind, one which has taken the time to really ‘think things through’ that individual will most often be very disappointed.
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 7:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gee bob, does Ms May live in Delta also?
Posted August 1st, 2008 at 9:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - The game is over for now. The atheist’s “won” the moment the city determined their current invocation policy was not in compliance with current law and needed to be modified.
If you and AP are so concerned about the situation, I suggest you prepare a lawsuit challenging the new policy (whatever it may be) and propose the city return to its original procedure.
The fee for filing a lawsuit in District Court is minimal ($25.00 or so). I’m sure the two of you can scrape up the money from your Social Security checks.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ms. May, a superb letter. Thank you.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Correction, DR. May
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash - As an attorney, I believe Ms. May’s formal title (as strange as it sounds) would be “Irene May, Esquire”
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey, that would go well…
gjblubber,retard
You guys couldn’t make it by yourselves at the garbage dump of newspapers and are crawling back?
That explains the putrid stench of failed liberalism.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 7:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - How can we “couldn’t make it by yourselves at the garbage dump of newpapers” when the blog hasn’t even started yet.
This is the kind of thinking that happens when you don’t take your anti-psychotic meds on time in the morning.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 7:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thank you GJB — Upon learning that someone has been a professor at a university I always err on the side of Ph.D
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Once again the elitist liberal atheists go a mile out of their way to drop a name. A couple of days ago, one of them commented that Councilman Palmer was his neighbor and friend, and hinted that the fix was in on the invocation issue. Now they want to make sure that the great unwashed realizes that the opinion of an attorney is far more important than that of a common man, and we should recognize their efforts for what they are; elitist, balderdash and name dropping hogwash. One American, one vote, whether your name is John Q. Public or Irene May, Esquire. What a country.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
now blubberboy, you promised it would start on Friday.
Unless your calendar is broken, that was yesterday.
Did you lie to us again?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP- And just what have you accomplished in your life to deserve any kind of title?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - Please refer to any post of mine indicating that the Free Press blog would begin yesterday. Thanks.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Get a life, people, and get with the issue as well which is not personal, but constitutional, as in the rule of and requirements of laws in this country, no more, no less. That’s all Mr. Hugenberg and Ms. May, both with greater knowledge of the law than myself or any of the other respondents, were trying to point out. You do a disservice to yourself and this forum with the emotive diatribes and dialogue diversion to other emphemeral and ethereal issues.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Now they want to make sure that the great unwashed realizes that the opinion of an attorney is far more important than that of a common man, and we should recognize their efforts for what they are; elitist, balderdash and name dropping hogwash.”
Yes AP unfortunately for your self-esteem a Professor of Constitutional Law knows a heck of a lot more about that subject than high school dropouts. I suggest, by the way that the next time you have a physical examination that you tell your physician that his opinion is elitist, balderdash, and hogwash. That is certain to earn you some respect!!
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh class, you overbloated elitist snob.
You slandered a variety of well respected scientists in the Global warming forum, and you have yet to respond to the facts you requested.
Why is that?
Is it because every one of those REAL SCIENTISTS each have more accomplishments than you were ever capable of?
Is it because you have grown old and bitter because, late in life, you realized that you are, and always have been just another miserable failure with nothing of value to offer society?
Afraid to admit that you lied about those people in a failed effort to make yourself appear intelligent?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
I am shocked, GJbubba, that you did not recognize the greatest title that may be aspired to, especially because it was right in front of you, when you replied to my post. AMERICAN PATRIOT. Maybe you could explain why liberals so often ignore that title which is the highest honor that can be bestowed on any citizen? You find it offensive to your agenda, perhaps?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
classless buffoon, the only elitists that we have to deal with are here pretending them iz smarter than everybody else, and ever so much more superior.
But, with every post your make, your bitterness about your entire life being just one long string of failures comes shining through.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I find it offensive that someone who labels themselves “American Patriot” thinks it is his job to find ways around US laws, and you stated when describing your retirement home in Arizona. I find it offensive that someone who labels himself “American Patriot” has no problem with insults as long as they are not directed at him.
Those are not definitions of patriotism in my book.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lizard,
You assert elitist opinion as fact. You presume to be the finder of fact. If the atheists have a case, why not file it? Then a decision could be made and all of your assertions would be unnecessary. There are no short cuts to proving your case, and that is a fact. Another fact is that if you put two lawyers in a room together, you will have three opinions, and that is the problem with your assertions, they are based on opinions.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor scottie.
Do you really think that bitterness, lying, hate mongering, belittling others, slandering those of high achievements, etc is “patriotic”?
I consider that behavior to be decidedly UN AMERICAN.
In fact, I consider that type of behavior the domain of useless, lowbred, pathetic losers, with nothing of value to offer to this nation.
Gee, I just described the Bombastic Buffoon Brigade.
‘magine that….
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lizard - Welcome to the gutter known as community.com! It’s great to have someone with a literate vocabulary join our little club, although I sure you already have Willis and AP scrambling for their dictionaries - their working vocabularies indicate their educational and intellectual level is far below yours.
Also, congratulations are in order - with your literate post, you qualify for the title of “elitist liberal atheist,” which is the highest honor attainable on this forum.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If my physician were to render a diagnosis or treatment program without a physical examination, then I would most certainly question their judgment. What is missing from your learned legal colleges is that physical examination in the form of adjudication, they have adjudged the city council guilty without due process. I would have thought that point of law would not have been overlooked by those with such prestigious law degrees. Their assumption that one size fits all precedents is nothing more than their opinion, and that is why in American jurisprudence we have due process. What you are demanding from the city council is that enter into a plea bargain based on your opinions and conclusion that they are breaking the law, and your efforts should be seen for exactly what they are, an atheist attempt to bypass due process.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot, we now have another proteus clone.
this lizard persona seems to fit well with the loser attitude of previous, as well as current, incarnations.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 9:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
And an atheist being offended should come as a surprise? Is that not the entire basis for atheists existence? Atheists are offended by the Ten Commandments, the pledge of allegiance, invocations, public prayer, and “in God we trust” on our currency, yet they seem to have no reservations nor are they offended by their use of selected precedents to benefit their agenda. How convenient for them that they overlook due process of law in their demands. All the things that offend you make no demands upon atheists, yet you can see no offense in the atheists continuous string of demands against Christians. You can see no offense in finding Christians guilty without the due process of a trial. Is it possible that not-withstanding atheists beliefs, they see Christians as the children of a lesser God, and deem them unworthy of due process? That Sir, is a position that all American patriots should find offensive. If you think you have a case, file it, and cease and desist your efforts to put Christians into submission through intimidation, biased opinion and demonetization. Embrace the whole of the law, and not just the parts that benefit your agenda.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As a matter of fact, AP, I do not presume to be a finder of fact, it happens to be my profession since I have a PhD in history and researched and taught the subject for 27 years and I know how to separate fact from opinion. I taught writing for the same period of time and have worked as an editor.
Nor am I an atheist (take note, GJ Bubba, because you play pretty fast and loose with your assertions and attributions as well) or take all atheist positions. We are talking about the rule of law and our Constitution and the last time I checked most rational people were able to separate Church and State in their daily lives and governing principles of their ethical and moral behavior.
However, I found the rest of the points in your second response to be well-taken.
Nor am I a Proteus clone, Willis, whatever that is as this is the first time I have even ventured into the forum.
However, I can see it was a rather wasted effort to raise the level of discourse so am exiting for now.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 9:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot.
Atheists began life in a place of pure ease and contentment.
All their needs were taken care of by somebody else with no effort on their part and life was wonderful.
Then, suddenly, their lives were turned upside down, and they were cast out into a cold,cruel world and ever since the day of their birth, they have been begging everybody to return them to a nice safe, warm place where they have nothing to do but soak up nourishment at somebody elses expense and effort.
It hasn’t happened yet, so they cast aside any hope, and have now resorted to demanding victim status and the accompanying pity and sympathy that accompanies it.
Poor babies. I do pity them.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
RE: you labeling me as a high school drop out. FYI, I dropped out of high school to go to work in the oil fields for the purpose of supporting my family. My Father was 100% disabled, combat wounded US Army Veteran and at that time, you may recall that his government pension was less than $240.00 per month. I did what I had to do at the time, and while I make no claims to a privileged prestigious education such as yours, I did go on to complete my GED while in military service, so technically I passed a high school equivalency test, and fortunately, I have gained some wisdom from the experience of life. And I do possess common sense. And, unlike you, I do not find it necessary to demean others by touting a superior privileged education.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WAIT Lizard, come back….
If you truly are NOT a proteus clone I do sincerely apologize.
I’ll play nice, as long as you play nice.
Please don’t go away mad….
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 9:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lizard,
You are also not a sitting judge, and no matter your education, you are not empowered by law to render a legal decision. You are however entitled to do exactly what you have done. Present your opinion. It is important that the public know the difference.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot, Lizard claims to be a history nut, and would like to get some honest HISTORY injected into the conversation.
But alas, I fear I may have miffed the person…
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
lizard states: “As a matter of fact, AP, I do not presume to be a finder of fact, it happens to be my profession since I have a PhD in history and researched and taught the subject for 27 years and I know how to separate fact from opinion.”
It is refreshing to note that this forum is picking up more educated people as time goes on. That, I find exceedingly refreshing and always look forward to reading and considering opinions expressed, and points raised by those who know more than I do about any subject, in particular in one where I also have great interest. Hopefully, the individual will correct me if he/she finds me in error. How else to learn but from someone more knowledgeale in a particular subject matter?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “RE: you labeling me as a high school drop out.”
I did not so label you. Perhaps you need to review what I actually wrote. (note the “s” on “dropouts” indicating it is a generic term). But while we are on the subject of you personally, I seem to recall that you labeled yourself a high school dropout in earlier communications. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.
AP: “I did what I had to do at the time, and while I make no claims to a privileged prestigious education such as yours,”
Your sad story cuts no ice with me. My father was out of work much of the time because of his union organizing activities and and had no cushy government dole ($240/month would have seemed like a fortune to us) Our family income often depended upon my mother taking in other people’s laundry, my paper routes, lawn mowing and other odd jobs. I managed to get a college education by not whining about my poor lot in life and doing what was necessary to work my way through college which involved 60/70 hour weeks. There was nothing privileged about my education except the privilege of doing it all myself (with a bit of help from an athletic scholarship). If you did not get an education, then the choice was all yours.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Elitism again class? For what purpose?
Does it raise you in your own eyes to a higher level?
Civil discussion is problematic for people of your belief system.
It brings forth knowledge and ideas that run contrary to the concept of socialism and communism.
Unrestricted ideas and thoughts brought forth openly and honestly, and discussed in public are the anathema of your political beliefs, and it cannot be allowed.
Thus, the continual attempts at destroying the vestiges of Christianity, other religious belief systems, and Free and open discussions of ideas.
All thought must be tightly controlled lest people see what is being heaped upon them by the socialist elite among us.
This site will be open to thoughts and beliefs from ALL people, not restricted to the beliefs of the few who would seek to control that thoughts of others when presented for discussion.
Ridicule of others thoughts and ideas will not be tolerated, nor will lies and demeaning posts against those who choose to place their ideas and beliefs into the open market for discussion.
If you choose to remain, and be treated with courtesy and respect, first you must show the courtesy and respect to others.
That my little friend is the AMERICAN WAY!
Now, have a nice day.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Am neither mad nor miffed or, for that matter, easily offended. Were I such I would never have been able to complete a PhD because my opinions and interpretations of things I thought once to be historical facts were challenged at every turn.
However, I do take offense to people putting words in my mouth that were never uttered by me. I never claimed to be a sitting judge or empowered by law to render a legal opinion.
On the matter of fact vs. opinon, Max Weber wrote a landmark essay years ago titled “On Objectivity in the Social Sciences” in which he included history although others have disputed that inclusion. What he found was that in history and other social sciences, there really isn’t anything such as true “objectivity” and you probably recognize that the term “objective opinion” is an oxymoron or contradiction in terms anyway. That’s because we interpret all historical facts in light of our own times and experiences.
On the other hand there is a huge difference between informed and uninformed opinion and what I term “willful ignorance” or refusal to consider opinons other than one’s own as valid or having merit. When that happens, that great cartoon philosopher, Pogo, was right. We have met the enemy and he is us.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 11:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
I will make no reply for myself except to say my quitting high school was not a matter of choice, it was a matter of necessity.
But I will take sharp issue with your reference of my Father being on the “government dole“. It may interest you to know what price he paid for his disability pension. He was wounded after the US invasion of New Guinea by a Japanese machine gun. He was hit with three bullets. All entered his body from the left side. One entered his intestines and resulted in peritonitis. One of the three bullets severed his spinal cord and the last bullet shattered his left hip joint and exited through his right leg below the groin. He used a colostomy bag with a catheter system for the rest of his life. He remained in a VA Hospital for just over two years after he was wounded. As part of the “government dole” he received a purple heart, a bronze star and a silver star, as well as a Presidential unit citation. Also included were a hospital bed, a wheel chair and a lifetime supply of colostomy bags.
The only trip, other than to the front porch of our home, that he ever made after he was wounded , was to Camp Pendleton, CA, when I completed boot camp. I never heard him say a disparaging word about his country, nor did he ever complain about his disability, or the pain that he suffered every moment of every day. When I was a small boy, I discovered his medals, all in their boxes in the closet. When I asked him about them, he replied that they were awarded to him, but they rightfully belonged to the men who fought and died beside him. And that was the first and last time he ever referred to them.
You can say that he was on a “government dole”, but I prefer to believe that he earned every cent of his $240.00 a month pension. And when I see people like yourself abusing the rights that he gave so much to provide for you, and complaining of government abuse and how you are offended by the slightest thing, and all the perceived injustices perpetrated against you, I have to think back to how pleased my Father would have been to walk one single step in your ungrateful shoes.
And I realize that there is very little hope that your conscience will bother you, but I say a prayer to Almighty God and beseech him that at least your feet should hurt.
Sir, you have not earned the right to mention my Father.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 11:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Poor little Christians, always looking for tiny puffs of persecution. This issue is about who has the power and control to set the aganda on prayer, moment of silence, or who gets to leave the room.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson, in replying to a post by ‘lizard’ made the following characterization “Lizard claims to be a history nut”
Such judgments and characterizatons of others who have specialized knowledge can only be rendered by those who themselves lack the knowledge and understanding of the discipline. Such appears to be the case with Mr. Johnson. In this case, as has been evident in many of his prior posts, his understanding of history is limited to learning facts and factoids and rendering judment upon them. “A” happened, that was good or, “B” happened, that was ‘bad’. One could also surmise, and quite correctly, that the extent of history extends only to the length of his own life, and what he has personally experienced.
No, Mr. Johnson. ‘lizard’ has taken the time and made the required to learn about the subject, something which any intelligent and reasonable person would do prior to expressing any opinion, on any subject. Would that Mr. Johnson do the same prior to expressing his, which are all too often reflective of an uninformed mind. Alas, such is apparently not to be the case.
AP stated that the same individual, lizard, was not entitled to render a ‘legal opinion’. Perhaps AP would care to go back and re-read what was posted by that individual. He might find that what lizard posted was not at all a ‘legal opinion’ but one dealing with the concept of ’separation of church and state’, and the applicability of that concept in this country. And, there is a great difference between the two.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 11:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof98 posts: “Poor little Christians, always looking for tiny puffs of persecution. This issue is about who has the power and control to set the aganda on prayer, moment of silence, or who gets to leave the room.”
So true, seeking to clothe themselves in the vestments of ‘victomhood’ when they don’t get their way. Reminds me of a ‘whining’ or ’sniveling’ child looking for ‘attention through pity’.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Sir, you have not earned the right to mention my Father.”
Get off your high horse. Your father survived the war and lived on the taxpayer’s dime from then on. My uncle (my father’s brother) had no such option as he was killed in Germany. My cousin was killed at Tarawa. My Ggrandfather’s twin was killed at Antietam. My ancestor’s or close relatives served in every major war this country has been involved in from the Revolutionary war on except for Iraq. So I take no guff off of people like you trading on their relative’s service.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“And an atheist being offended should come as a surprise? Is that not the entire basis for atheists existence?”
You have claimed to know about what atheists are and what motivates them, and yet once again, you get it wrong.
“Atheists are offended by the Ten Commandments,”
Only when displayed inappropriately, such as in a setting that suggests the US legal system is based on them.
“the pledge of allegiance,”
Not at all, except for the “under God” part, which may well be coming out later this year.
“invocations,”
Again, only when conducted in an unconstitutional manner, such as those done by the city council and county commissioners.
“public prayer,”
Not at all. As long as I don’t have to participate.
“and “in God we trust” on our currency,”
Yet another issue that may soon be resolved.
“yet they seem to have no reservations nor are they offended by their use of selected precedents to benefit their agenda. How convenient for them that they overlook due process of law in their demands.
The thing you miss here, AP, is that there are no contrary precedents. Sectarian prayer has been ruled unconstitutional in 100% of the cases where it has been adjudicated. A ruling here is not necessary to determine if it is unconstitutional here. The Supreme Court Ruling applies everywhere. You continue to ignore this point.
“All the things that offend you make no demands upon atheists, yet you can see no offense in the atheists continuous string of demands against Christians.”
Irrelevant. They are still unconstitutional.
“You can see no offense in finding Christians guilty without the due process of a trial.”
Constitutionality issues are not criminal cases. No one may be found guilty of breaking a law without a trial, but the trial is to determine someone’s guilt, not whether the law has been broken in the first place. That is the difference you seem to be missing.
“Is it possible that not-withstanding atheists beliefs, they see Christians as the children of a lesser God, and deem them unworthy of due process?”
Not at all, but due process does not apply here. No one is being tried for anything.
“That Sir, is a position that all American patriots should find offensive. If you think you have a case, file it, and cease and desist your efforts to put Christians into submission through intimidation, biased opinion and demonetization. Embrace the whole of the law, and not just the parts that benefit your agenda.”
I am using the parts of the law that are relevant to the issue at hand. Constitutionality questions are not criminal cases, and the procedures particular to criminal cases do not apply. The issue is not whether someone is guilty or not. The issue is whether the law has been broken, and a trial is not necessary for that.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lizard,
No doubt each individuals opinion is exactly the product of the prejudice produced by their life’s experience. The question becomes what necessitates the expression of opinions from both sides of this issue? And I respectfully submit that if the atheists are truly of the belief that there is merit to their cause of action, they should petition the court for redress of their grievances, as it is the courts opinion in this individual case that will provide closure, and that decision will render the opinions expressed, whether informed or uninformed, moot.
What then is the purpose of these discussions, other than to move the atheists demands and agenda to the front burner in this election year. I have said and I will repeat my belief that this strategy may prove to be counter-productive for the atheist agenda.
I realize the expectations of raising public awareness were that public officials would succumb to the political correctness factor. When that did not happen, on a wholesale level, the threat of personal law suits, (thinly veiled as it was), was introduced. Again the desired effect was not achieved, and the unintended consequence was the backlash that occurred in the Christian community. These circumstances now beg the question; what part of NO don’t the atheists understand? The logical progression at this point and time is for the atheists to either drop their demands or pursue their case in court, which should have been the logical first step, as all that has transpired was foreseeable, even to the point of being inevitable. To continue to pursue the failed strategy of trying the atheist case in the court of public opinion only invites greater resistance and creates discord in our community. File it or forget it.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Far too many consider themselves ‘patriots’ because of what their relatives or ancestors did. That, in my humble opinion, is really an attempt to credit themselves with, and live off of, the contribution of others. Having made none themselves, and not wanting to make any, that is all they have to fall back upon.
It is truly sad to say, but it is nothing more than (although in a different context) but the same old and tired childish argument of ‘my daddy can beat up your daddy’.
Classof52 is correct in his assessment of some individuals. When they bring relatives and spouses into a discussion, it is because they cannot discuss or defend their own ideas in an intelligent or rational manner and HAVE to change the subject, their own arguments having been exhausted.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
lizard; “What he found was that in history and other social sciences, there really isn’t anything such as true “objectivity” and you probably recognize that the term “objective opinion” is an oxymoron or contradiction in terms anyway. That’s because we interpret all historical facts in light of our own times and experiences.
”
But don’t we get more objective as time goes on as our store of facts continually grows, aided by the use of modern techniques such as DNA analysis and Carbon Dating?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP posts: “No doubt each individuals opinion is exactly the product of the prejudice produced by their life’s experience.”
That is not an accurate statement. Not all opinions are the ‘product’ of prejudice, only those based upon ‘pre-judgements’ or, reaching a conclusion prior to knowing or understanding an issue or its bases. As to ‘life experience’, that applies only as long as one also includes ‘education’ in that experience, not only ‘personal’ experience. Given those constraints one must ask AP if he considers his own opinions but the product of his own prejudices? One could readily conclude that such is the case when he ‘expresses’ himself on subjects and on issues he has not first taken the time to study, thereby all too frequently missing the central point made by others in their posts.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
H-m-m-m. AP, would those be the same courts and court system whose upper-echelon positions were recently revealed to have been staffed by people who were selected based on their political views rather than merit? And when they are beholden to that opinion for an appointment, you are suggesting the atheists or any other dissenting group or activist judge-to-be would get a fair shake? (And I am not talking about the Supremes, who may be conservative, but do appear to honor their office by interpreting the law “objectively” or at least based on our laws and precedents.)
Judicial appointees who interpret the law can err the same as people who hold forth in the “court” of public opinion or like you, seem to enjoy “courting” public opinion.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
CO52;Get off your high horse. Your father survived the war and lived on the taxpayer’s dime from then on. My uncle (my father’s brother) had no such option as he was killed in Germany. My cousin was killed at Tarawa. My Ggrandfather’s twin was killed at Antietam. My ancestor’s or close relatives served in every major war this country has been involved in from the Revolutionary war on except for Iraq. So I take no guff off of people like you trading on their relative’s service.
You are, in my opinion, a poor excuse for a “human being”. You think that your family is better than anyone else, by what you represent in your posts. How dare you condemn anyones relative, or anyone else for that matter, for receiving pension from their service to their country, due to injury, in such a fashion. I have had several family members who have served in the military, including my husband, (and his father) our daughter, and her husband who is now in Iraq.
I have lost family members also, including my husbands great grandfather who was in the German army, who BTW was executed, (accused of being a spy, which he was not). Also have lost good friends.
I think you are a very despicable man, and have no respect for you. You do not deserve respect!!!!!!!
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I am not ignorant of precedent. I simply disagree with your assessment that they are all one sided, and so apparently does the City Attorney. He said court rulings are divided on the issue of naming specific deities in invocations. He also said one case indicated routine references are unconstitutional while another case held that occasional references are constitutional. RE: Wynne v Great Falls, 2004; court rules the town promoted one religion over all others; Marsh V Chambers, 1983; court rules that prayer performed by a taxpayer paid chaplain did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment; Society of Separationists Inc v Whitehead, 1993; court upheld the practice of asking area religious and civic organizations to present an opening prayer at city council meetings; and Palphrey v Cobb, 2006 court ruled that the must include all faiths in invitations.
Scott,
No doubt in your own minds eye you may or may not see these and other precedents as being applicable to what you consider to be your cause of action against the GJ City Council’s invocation policy. The question you don’t seem to understand is whether a court would agree with you. You have drawn the conclusion that they would. While others have drawn the conclusion that they would not. None of these conclusions, by anyone other than the court, are anything but opinions, and they exist outside the lawfully prescribed due process of this specific case. There is only one way to resolve whether these precedents and opinions are applicable to this specific case, and that is for a court of law to make that determination. Frankly I don’t understand the resistance to allowing a court of law to make those very necessary decisions. You continue to assert that the atheists are right. The Christian community has every right to the opposite opinion and assertions. Shall we continue with our assertions and opinions adnauseum? Is it not the responsibility and prerogative of the atheists to pursue any legitimate cause of action to closure? The ball is in the atheists court, and if they wish to do anything other than try to talk the city council out of their invocation policy, isn’t it logical that they should take the next step and file their case? Not-withstanding your assertions that the atheist cause of action is on firm footing, it is beginning to appear that an element of doubt exists within the atheist group as to how successful their issue would be in a court of law. Carpe Diem
File it or forget it. The burden of proof lies with the atheists.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now Tasha53, don’t get too excited about the classless elitist buffoon.
We only have his word to go on, and his word and $20.00 will still get you kicked out of any reputable business in town.
The person (definitely not a man by any definition) has repeatedly shown his total lack of honesty and lack of integrity in any number of threads and forums on this site.
He has no discernible worthwhile character traits that should ever be passed on.
In short, he has no value to any conversation on any subject.
When he has no knowledge on a subject, he will lie to make people think he has knowledge. When caught, he runs to another thread and claims later that he never said it. When his words are reposted for all to see, he runs away again.
It really is pathetic to watch.
What is even more pathetic, others will circle around him and present their own versions of the lie to bolster his.
When they are shown to be as useless, they run away and return as another person.
They claim expertise, but cursory questioning proves they have no specialized knowledge.
The sole commonality between them is the same failed belief in socialism and their earnest desire to live long enough to view the destruction of Freedom in this country.
They are all elitists, and hold themselves above all others.
They above all, and to them, that is their undeniable RIGHT.
Like Lenin and Stalin, if the had the power, all dissidents would be sent into exile. Well, the survivors anyway.
As this site has progressed they have become increasingly shrill in their attempts to shout down their detractors.
Theirs is to control this board, and control they will!
Except for those of us who continually stick reality and HONESTY in their faces on a daily basis. (oh bother! they wail)
Each day it is the same, different topics, but still the same screeching and caterwauling.
And every day, we grin and twist the hot blade of truth a little deeper.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot, when discussing any subject with scott, always keep in mind that you are stupid, probably too stupid to feed yourself or tie your own shoes.
He will always claim superior knowledge on every subject, regardless of how retarded he ends up looking. And he will never admit that he is lost.
Pathetic.
Lately, since I began making the point that this ‘invocation’ issue was all about the atheists being desirous of victim status, suddenly that appears in their posts as the “Christian” motives.
Apparently, the atheists have noticed the victim status may have negative connotations and now they want to be something else with same perks as victim status would grant them.
Really pathetic.
One could even say the atheists are to be pitied, along with the pity classof52 is seeking.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“I am not ignorant of precedent. I simply disagree with your assessment that they are all one sided, and so apparently does the City Attorney. He said court rulings are divided on the issue of naming specific deities in invocations. He also said one case indicated routine references are unconstitutional while another case held that occasional references are constitutional.”
Did the city attorney also mention that the one case where routine references are acceptable, the judge that issued the ruling acknowledged that his ruling was not in line with the majority of other rulings? In other words, he admitted he was going against the generally accepted precedents.
“RE: Wynne v Great Falls, 2004; court rules the town promoted one religion over all others; Marsh V Chambers, 1983; court rules that prayer performed by a taxpayer paid chaplain did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment; Society of Separationists Inc v Whitehead, 1993; court upheld the practice of asking area religious and civic organizations to present an opening prayer at city council meetings; and Palphrey v Cobb, 2006 court ruled that the must include all faiths in invitations.”
No one has said the invocations must stop. The atheists, from the start, have acknowledged that the city has a right to have invocations - they are simply asking them to conform to the legal guidelines. And this is what is being asked for.
“No doubt in your own minds eye you may or may not see these and other precedents as being applicable to what you consider to be your cause of action against the GJ City Council’s invocation policy. The question you don’t seem to understand is whether a court would agree with you.”
Apparently, the city attorney agrees as well, since he is advising the council that things need to change.
“You have drawn the conclusion that they would. While others have drawn the conclusion that they would not.”
No one has drawn this conclusion who is involved with the situation.
“None of these conclusions, by anyone other than the court, are anything but opinions, and they exist outside the lawfully prescribed due process of this specific case.”
It is not an opinion that the Marsh ruling states that sectarian prayer is unconstitutional. It is a fact. The only opinion is whether the 90% of city council invocations that are Christian-specific constitutes “sectarian prayer.” Apparently, it is the opinion of the city attorney that it does, since that is how he is advising the city council.
“There is only one way to resolve whether these precedents and opinions are applicable to this specific case, and that is for a court of law to make that determination.”
Unless the city lawyer decides they are applicable and advises the city council as such. Which he has done.
“Frankly I don’t understand the resistance to allowing a court of law to make those very necessary decisions.”
Ask the city council that question.
“You continue to assert that the atheists are right. The Christian community has every right to the opposite opinion and assertions. Shall we continue with our assertions and opinions adnauseum?”
What will happen if the council changes the invocation without a trial? What will you say then?
“Is it not the responsibility and prerogative of the atheists to pursue any legitimate cause of action to closure?”
Sure. They started by asking politely. They are waiting for the city council to come to a decision on what to do about their request.
“The ball is in the atheists court, and if they wish to do anything other than try to talk the city council out of their invocation policy, isn’t it logical that they should take the next step and file their case?”
They are apparently waiting to see what the council is going to do about their request. It’s only polite to allow someone the time to give you an answer before you go to the next step, if such is necessary.
“Not-withstanding your assertions that the atheist cause of action is on firm footing, it is beginning to appear that an element of doubt exists within the atheist group as to how successful their issue would be in a court of law.”
Why? Because they are waiting to see what the council will do? How does that indicate any element of doubt?
“Carpe Diem File it or forget it. The burden of proof lies with the atheists.”
And they have provided that proof to the city council, and the city attorney has apparently agreed with them.
Really AP, I thought you were keeping up with this issue? You seem to be several weeks behind.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha53: “You are, in my opinion, a poor excuse for a “human being”. You think that your family is better than anyone else, by what you represent in your posts. How dare you condemn anyones relative, or anyone else for that matter, for receiving pension from their service to their country, due to injury, in such a fashion. I have had several family members who have served in the military, including my husband, (and his father) our daughter, and her husband who is now in Iraq.”
I am afraid that I have no respect for your reading comprehension. It was AP who intimated that his family was better than anyone elses. He brought up the subject, not I. I merely pointed out that others could make similar claims. I invite you to quote for me the sentence where I “condemned” anyone for receiving a pension. I see now why you admire WLJ. You substitute ad hominem attack for thought.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Troglodyte, would that that were true. But most modern peoples have seen history as a progression while we continue to stumble over the same universal themes and philosophical or religious differences, no matter how advanced our scientific or factual knowledge. Certainly this forum illustrates and underscores that fact.
Really quite fascinating. My personal paradox was the more educated I became, the more profoundly I was aware of the scope and depth of my ignorance. Whereas those who are less educated, reflective or open-minded appear to have no such awareness.
I was very fortunate/lucky to have educational opportunities and encouragement at an early age, but those without are equally capable of rational thought, intelligent discussion and increasing their knowledge about the world all the time. Their willful ignorance simply precludes their doing so and so they remain just that, willfully and woefully ignorant, but not at all averse to revealing to everyone else that they are such.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gentlemen,
Now appears the assertion that the atheists cannot get a fair hearing. I would think those of you with law backgrounds and degrees would have realized long ago that access to a court of law is not a guarantee of justice. It is simply an opportunity for justice, which is directly related to the skill level of representation and the merit of the cause of action under law. It is a prejudgement and I think counter-productive to call into question the equity of the triers of fact prior to even filing a case. Such an assertion is nothing more than a prediction that your cause will not prevail. If you feel in your heart of hearts that your cause of action has lawful merit, why make excuses for it’s defeat before it has even been heard? Such predictions only invite others to view your words as whining, and are seen as patent pandering to an atheist culture of victimization. Have the courage of your convictions. Anything less will reflect on your future credibility. You have yelled wolf, and now you must produce something more than a Chihuahua if you wish to be taken seriously.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Non-Christians, who may also be people of faith, are such a threat? When did Christianity become so fragile that not letting people pray on public property hurts it?
Are you all short on places to pray? Maybe we should raise money and help you build some places where you can go.
Because some of us do not want to start any meeting in a public place by pandering to someones God/Goddess Allah, or whatever, we are trying to destroy religion? Give Christians an inch, and they take the whole country. Now we want some parts of it back.
Here is a small list of the places where you can express your religion. Homes, cars, businesses, personal jewelry, your property, church, church property, phone book ads, and I am sure there are more.
Here is where you can not. Public property, especially at a public meeting, when lead by a religious leader.
You all are not stupid, you are just smugly arrogant and sure of your power.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oh, I nearly forgot….
Oh class, you overbloated elitist snob.
You slandered a variety of well respected scientists in the Global warming forum, and you have yet to respond to the facts you requested.
Why is that?
Is it because every one of those REAL SCIENTISTS each have more accomplishments than you were ever capable of?
Is it because you have grown old and bitter because, late in life, you realized that you are, and always have been just another miserable failure with nothing of value to offer society?
Afraid to admit that you lied about those people in a failed effort to make yourself appear intelligent?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Laitres,
You have attempted to apply a dark and nefarious definition to the word prejudice, which can be nothing more than a dislike for broccoli, and contrary to what you might like to believe, you too are a product of your life’s experience. Either you are like the rest of us and have prejudices or you are in denial. From your writings, I would conclude it is the latter.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - In post #25 you stated, “am shocked, GJbubba, that you did not recognize the greatest title that may be aspired to, especially because it was right in front of you, when you replied to my post. AMERICAN PATRIOT. Maybe you could explain why liberals so often ignore that title which is the highest honor that can be bestowed on any citizen?”
I’m curious; what group or organization officially anointed you with the title AMERICAN PATRIOT, or did you bestow it on yourself? What did you personally achieve, or action did you take, to be qualified to assume such an august title?
I suspect that, in the end, you are an AMERICAN PATRIOT only in the wilderness of your own mind.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting, every time I post the challenge to classless, elitist buffon, to act like a man, I make sure he is online to see it.
And every time, shortly after I post it….
POOF!!!!
he is gone. running like a coward for taller timber?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Correction to my post 55. It was my husbands grandfather, not great-grandfather who was in the German Army.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Then all you need do Scott is prove that the invocations are outside the guidelines in a court of law. Anything less means nothing. I have tried in various ways to make you understand this point. You, nor the city attorney nor anyone else, except a sitting judge has a legal opinion that counts. I know you want to voice your opinion and that is your right, but it does not make your or anyone elses opinion pertinent to any cause of action. Only the judges opinion counts. You can pretend not to understand that, and use it as an excuse to continue your assertions. It is simply a matter of what value is placed on your assertion, and I’m afraid that they must be viewed as just opinions, whether you like it or not.
But you apparently have drawn the conclusion that what the council is doing is unlawful. Now why not let a judge decide? As far as the council’s decision, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. As I indicated in my previous post, what the atheists are seeking is a plea bargain in the absence of any proof or judgment by a court of law that what the council is doing is unlawful. Hence the conclusion that the atheists are attempting to bypass due process. Why should they change it if it is lawful. The burden of proof lies with the atheists, and that burden can only be met in a court of law. At this point, Scott, you are sounding more and more like a capitalist with your hue and cry of let’s make a deal.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
CO52; I am afraid that I have no respect for your reading comprehension. It was AP who intimated that his family was better than anyone elses. He brought up the subject, not I. I merely pointed out that others could make similar claims. I invite you to quote for me the sentence where I “condemned” anyone for receiving a pension. I see now why you admire WLJ. You substitute ad hominem attack for thought.
CO53; Get off your high horse. Your father survived the war and lived on the taxpayer’s dime from then on.
Let me rephrase this then as an insult. Is that better for you now.
You have, in other posts brought up your family also. It was how you stated in your post 41, for my statement to be made. CO52;Your sad story cuts no ice with me. My father was out of work much of the time because of his union organizing activities and and had no cushy government dole ($240/month would have seemed like a fortune to us) Our family income often depended upon my mother taking in other people’s laundry, my paper routes, lawn mowing and other odd jobs. I managed to get a college education by not whining about my poor lot in life and doing what was necessary to work my way through college which involved 60/70 hour weeks. There was nothing privileged about my education except the privilege of doing it all myself (with a bit of help from an athletic scholarship). If you did not get an education, then the choice was all yours.
How in the hell would you know who I admire. I have never made any statements or references, to anyone here, including WJL, of admiring them.
You are just way of course.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Then all you need do Scott is prove that the invocations are outside the guidelines in a court of law.”
Not if both sides agree that this is the case, which is what has happened here.
“Anything less means nothing. I have tried in various ways to make you understand this point. You, nor the city attorney nor anyone else, except a sitting judge has a legal opinion that counts.
Then why isn’t the city pushing for a trial? If they have such an iron-clad case why aren’t they pulling a Rowland and telling the atheists to “bring it on”?
“I know you want to voice your opinion and that is your right, but it does not make your or anyone elses opinion pertinent to any cause of action. Only the judges opinion counts.”
The judges have weighed in on this matter, AP. The Supreme Court decision applies to Mesa County and the city of Grand Junction. The city attorneyt recognizes this. Why don’t you?
“You can pretend not to understand that, and use it as an excuse to continue your assertions.”
I do understand it. It is you that apparently doesn’t understand that if both sides agree on an issue, then there is no need for a trial.
“It is simply a matter of what value is placed on your assertion, and I’m afraid that they must be viewed as just opinions, whether you like it or not.”
Then why aren’t you filing a lawsuit to keep the invocations?
“But you apparently have drawn the conclusion that what the council is doing is unlawful.”
As has the city attorney, who is advising the city council accordingly.
“Now why not let a judge decide?”
because both sides agree on this, that’s why. The unlawful nature of the invocations is only in question by people outside of the situation.
“As far as the council’s decision, we will cross that bridge when we come to it.”
I’m looking forward to that day. It will be interesting indeed.
“As I indicated in my previous post, what the atheists are seeking is a plea bargain in the absence of any proof or judgment by a court of law that what the council is doing is unlawful.”
And if they get it, then they win. What’s your point?
“Hence the conclusion that the atheists are attempting to bypass due process.”
Not everything needs to be settled in a court of law, AP. If both sides agree, a trial is unnecessary.
“Why should they change it if it is lawful.”
Because they have agreed that it is unlawful. Apparently you are one of the few who are unaware of that.
“The burden of proof lies with the atheists, and that burden can only be met in a court of law.”
The city attorney apparently disagrees with you. Why don’t you take this up with him? It seems that he is the one you are really disputing.
“At this point, Scott, you are sounding more and more like a capitalist with your hue and cry of let’s make a deal.”
Since this country’s economy is founded on capitalism, I don’t think that is quite as much of an insult as you intended. The bottom line is that the city has acknowledged their invocation is unlawful and the only question remaining is what manner of change will be incorporated. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with the city.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52, a pension to a disabled vet is a “cushy government dole”?!?
You are proof that you can have intelligence and lack wisdom, have money and lack class.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Lizard - It’s been a real pleasure reading your postings so far today, but I must warn you about the potential consequences of become anything more than a very occasional contributor.
I have it on good authority that a summer session class of Psychology 101 students at Mesa State has just completed a study of Community.Com which proves conclusively that a new poster only remains “pure” for an average of 12.4 postings. After that, 99.95 percent of these new posters become infected with WAPS (Willis/Amerikan Patriot Syndrome) which causes them to rapidly sink into the sewer of mindless name-calling that is the world of those whose names spawned the malady.
Beware of WAPS - it could ruin your life!
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 98
One of the things that I often fail to say, perhaps because I know the people on this forum is that I respect a person who believes that they are right and sticks to their belief. With that in mind, may I offer that the atheists believe that their rights are being violated, and they often cite separation of church and state. There is no such clause in the Constitution, but there is a free exercise of religion clause in the Constitution. Hopefully you will understand that your proclamation that there is no individual right to pray on public property is seen by many Christians as a violation of their Constitutional rights. And you can be assured that they view that in much the same way as an atheist views a perceived violation of his Constitutional rights. There is a simple solution. Take the matter to court and then abide by the decision of that court. The atheists started the ball rolling with their letter to the City Council. I think it is a mistake for both sides to play, let’s make a deal. That belief is not based upon an inflexible position, but rather on experience. It must be evident to everyone involved that if the present City Council votes to change their invocation, even their policy, that decision can be reversed by future city councils. That is not a solution. That is a band-aid or temporary fix. And at least one side is guaranteed to be unhappy with the result. And that means that we will revisit this question time and again. And I do not see that as a desirable result, for the atheist, the Christian community or the present or future City Councils. This is a divisive issue, and both sides can continue to blame the other. Why not seek a solution, rooted in law. That at least would give the decision some permanence. Let me speak candidly to you. I do not know what the decision will be, by the City Council or by a court of law, but I do know that every day this issue continues, each side becomes more inflexible and more determined to resist whatever decision is reached. That is not good for the rule of law nor for those of us who must live in the same town. Thank you for your post. I welcome your opinion.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
In my opinion, the solution you seek will end up being no solution at all. Such are the winds of politics. But it is of course your choice and the choice of the atheists. I fear that whatever solution, if it is other than a court decision will only re-inflame the issue. But perhaps that is the intent, and I will leave it to the public to decide what course of action they should take. Right now, Scott, with the economy on a downhill slide, foreclosures on the rise, and layoffs, people will begin to rely more and more on their faith and hard times tend to favor conservative views. I honestly do not think that leaving this thing hanging will work in the atheists favor, but that is a strategy decision that they must make.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot, I agree up to a point.
The point is, the atheists do not ‘feel’ included during the ‘invocation’.
But is the invocation the real problem? Is ‘religion’ the issue?
No to both.
Do they feel excluded each time they drive by a church? When the enter a store before Christmas? When they see religious services on TV, in movies, people bowing before eating in a restaurant?
How do they ‘feel’ when a person sneezes and another says “God Bless You”?
There any number of organizations that many are not qualified to join for various reasons, but do they ‘feel’ excluded from joining?
When they drive by a park, and see a family reunion where people are having fun, do they ‘feel’ excluded?
They complain that if they do anything other than join in, they will be treated differently, but none have ever offered evidence of being treated differently.
As a person goes through life, many times they will find themselves in the presence of activities of which they have no knowledge and be unsure of the proper protocol.
When one finds ones self in the situation described, if one shows courtesy and respect for the rights of others, by not making an issue of their failure to act appropriately, there will be no notice made of their actions.
But, not the atheists.
They demand that they be noticed for their lack of a belief system and must be pitied and allowed victim status, as well as force others to cave to their petulant ways.
A bunch of whiners the ‘feel’ the need to be treated special.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
class, you are online!
Oh class, you overbloated elitist snob.
You slandered a variety of well respected scientists in the Global warming forum, and you have yet to respond to the facts you requested.
Why is that?
Is it because every one of those REAL SCIENTISTS each have more accomplishments than you were ever capable of?
Is it because you have grown old and bitter because, late in life, you realized that you are, and always have been just another miserable failure with nothing of value to offer society?
Afraid to admit that you lied about those people in a failed effort to make yourself appear intelligent?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
and POOF!!! he wuz gone.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Despite all the verbiage and attempt to obscure the issue the case is very simple: The prayer as conducted by the City Council and the County commissioners is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. The City Council recognizes that and is looking for ways to present a ceremonial invocation which fits the Marsh guidelines, according to the city mayor with whom I discussed the issue at the Farmer’s Market.
All the rest of the nonsense by AP, (and I suspect by WLJ since I no longer read his garbage) is a diversion to avoid grappling with the real issue. The questions about the motivation of the Atheists, the refusal to acknowledge the interests of the Jewish community in this issue even though one of their members wrote a letter to the Sentinel expressing the same concern, the fairgrounds escapade wrongly blamed on the boogeyman atheists, all of this is a smoke screen to hide the basic illegality of a system which cannot be defended.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t believe I said there is a proclamation that a religious person can not pray on public property.
It is this kind of distortion of what we say that muddies the water. I will say again, maybe in a different way, believers in whomever, do not have the right to start public proceedings with a church sanctioned and church leader delivered prayer on public property.
Sure, let the courts decide.
If this is all about good manners, then let the religious group pray in a circle in the parking lot, before they enter public property. Or go pray in two groups in the restrooms.
And don’t ask us to keep a moment of silence. I prefer to sing “Louie, Louie,” in order to be told to shut up, this is a sacred moment. Then at least you believers are being honest.
Still, I wonder about a religion so fragile it needs these little prayers before every public event.
I think this is all about who holds the upper hand, who has the power, who can get their way, and forget the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rights of the minority.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“In my opinion, the solution you seek will end up being no solution at all. Such are the winds of politics. But it is of course your choice and the choice of the atheists.”
No, actually it’s the choice of the city council. The ball is in their court since they are deliberating on what form the changes to the invocation will take. If someone after that decides to take further action, it will probably not be the atheists, since they are most likely going to have gotten what they were after - compliance with the Constitution. For many in the community, however, that will be too much.
“I fear that whatever solution, if it is other than a court decision will only re-inflame the issue.”
I have no doubt that when the city council changes their invocation, it will re-inflame the issue. It should be quite entertaining.
“But perhaps that is the intent, and I will leave it to the public to decide what course of action they should take.”
That should be entertaining as well.
“Right now, Scott, with the economy on a downhill slide, foreclosures on the rise, and layoffs, people will begin to rely more and more on their faith and hard times tend to favor conservative views.”
Good thing it’s not a majority rules situation, then isn’t it?
“I honestly do not think that leaving this thing hanging will work in the atheists favor, but that is a strategy decision that they must make.”
It won’t be left hanging. The decision by the city council will be made, and the conservatives will be unhappy. The city council will not be able to make them happy and comply with the law, because what they are asking for, and what you are promoting, is an unlawful position.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
J.Goebbels. (classes childhood sweetheart and idol)
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I understand what you are saying. I believe there is a group dynamic involved. That is part of my problem. For the life of me, I can’t understand why they don’t just go ahead and take it to court. I don’t want to think that they are trying to create an ongoing situation. I know that there are a lot of options that they have rejected outright, and I am beginning to get the feeling that the actions taken come from an advocacy group rather than from being a collective reaction of the individual. That is what is so hard about the let’s make a deal approach. We are not dealing with just one atheist and they are certainly not dealing with just one Christian. So no matter what is decided, there is going to be a segment of either side that is not going to accept the results. That is why I suggested a settlement in law. That is more apt to be a finality. I must admit I just don’t understand this whole thing. It seems like a large to-do over nothing. But I suppose they see it the same way, and at the moment regardless of the legalities, they are the ones trying to change the status quo. And that always carries unintended consequences like exactly what occurred with the Fair ground thing. And that is the pitfall of advocacy. I have seen GJ grow from what would be called a one-horse town into a city, and I have seen the people try to change with that growth. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. At Wal-Mart the other day, I was talking to a lady that just moved here. And she couldn’t understand that we have been through several booms and busts, and that there is always a segment of the population who remains to pick up the pieces after the booms. Those people tend to keep to their own council, and they are the core of what has kept this town alive. And with all the bust periods they have been through, and of course age is also a factor, they have tended to become more conservative. And they apply the tried and true methods because they work. That core is a formidable obstacle in the path of change. The newcomers tend to want change to happen overnight and the old timers want it done slowly. That not only gives them a chance to adjust but it also gives them the opportunity to reject change that is proven not to be beneficial to the community. All of these things, not just the legalities are a part of this issue. It is not nearly as cut and dried as some would have the people believe.
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
You just don’t get it do you class. You want to play the part of a prosecutor, and you want me to be the defense attorney. Both are a figment of your imagination. This quick fix agreement that you advocate will not work. Where if you do it by law, it has a chance of working. You are not after a workable solution. You are after revenge, and a victory. And that will only lead to more demands and more need for revenge and victory. What is your ultimate goal? Do you want to find a solution? Any agreement with the city council can be overturned by the vote of a new city council. Is this just some form of radicalism? Is it a search for power? Can’t you see that there are other considerations that need to be taken into account? Is it your goal that this should just go on and on? I confess that I don’t understand that kind of thinking. Why not let the issue have it’s day in court? What is so fearsome about that?
Posted August 2nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM