Sandra Aldersea’s recent letter, “Money drives policy not the Constitution,” printed on Dec. 20 merits further attention in light of the on-going invocation dispute in Mesa County.
In her letter, Sandra asserts that Earl Mullen, newly elected president of the Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers, previously wrote that the U.S. Constitution – and particularly the Bill of Rights (which contains the establishment clause of the First Amendment) – protects the “needs of a minority.”
Sandra properly disagrees with this statement on two grounds. First, as a matter of law and history, the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the inalienable legal “rights” of minorities from compromise by the majority and thus is particularly relevant when the Christian majority seeks to intimidate religious minorities and/or atheists.
Second, as a practical matter, it may be true that “Big money is what will win for him, that and the backing of the ACLU.” Sandra seems to realize that local atheists have the Bill of Rights on their side, and may well prevail against at least the Mesa County commissioners – their defense by the Alliance Defense Fund notwithstanding.
Moreover, our courts fully appreciate that “money talks” in our society and therefore award both damages to plaintiffs and attorney fees to lawyers (including those of the ACLU) who successfully vindicate constitutional rights against governmental abuse.
In sum, if the ACLU decides to sue the Grand Junction City Council over its invocation policy and/or the Mesa County Commissioners over their foolishly stubborn invocation practice, it will be because the ACLU fully expects to win – and thus also expects that all its expenses of litigation will eventually be borne by the taxpayers of Grand Junction and/or Mesa County, and/or personally by those elected officials who have blithely subordinated their oaths of office to their peculiar religious beliefs.
BILL HUGENBERG
Grand Junction

Posted 11 months, 3 days ago in 












3 Responses to “ACLU will likely win invocation battle”
Posted December 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
How can anyone take the rantings of nutjob Mr Hugenberg seriously? Another case of misguided anger coming from who knows where? Bill, your 15 minutes have been up for a long time now!
Posted December 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, Advocate, but Hugenberg is anything but a nutjob. He’s the most caring, intelligent guy I know and only opines or informs on something when he knows the answer aleady,like any really good attorney should do. If you have a problem with the stands he takes you might consider being as informed as he is on the subject at hand before shooting off your mouth with insulting epithets. May we call you a nutjob for disagreeing with whatever your position is on this matter?
Posted December 23rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In order to fully appreciate the statement made by advocate, we have to recognize that most such posts originate from one individual not knowing the other. Unable to discuss the issue they then resort to name-calling or mis-characterization others. That is the only arrow they have in their quiver, all too frequently little more than a limp piece of pasta. It might be humorous to read such thing, if only they weren’t so sad.
As has John, I also have had the opportunity and pleasure of meeting Mr. Hugenberg. He is anything but a “nut job”. We may at times disagree but, as mature individuals need do, we do so upon issues, concepts, and ideas, not on personality (especially if one has never met the individual). To do otherwise would be to behave in not only in an immature, but churlish manner.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.