At the risk of again being accused of “grandstanding” (for bringing attention to a public policy issue of potential financial import for Mesa County) and of being an “atheist” (as if that pejorative diminishes the credibility of my opinion), I offer the following response to Christa Taylor’s letter (“Prayer lawsuit is no slam dunk for the ACLU,” Dec. 29).
First, while Christa is right that such a lawsuit would be “no slam dunk” (if only because Establishment Clause litigation is particularly problematic), my previous letter observed that the ACLU would initiate such a lawsuit if it had a high expectation of prevailing.
Second, if and when the ACLU does file suit (if ever), Daily Sentinel readers should be aware that it is doing so with the anticipation that Mesa County’s taxpayers will end up paying its attorney fees. Thus, the real question is why we are inviting such an outcome.
Third, compared to the city of Grand Junction’s prudent invocation policy (which recognizes the current state of the law), our county commissioner’s practice (and de facto policy) is “foolishly stubborn” because it defies what our courts have already held.
Fourth, contrary to Christa’s “nothing more” rationale, the commissioners are speaking for all of us and the government when they “freely express their religious beliefs” as part of a public meeting. Both the Fourth and Tenth Circuits have ruled on this issue (and the former’s recent decision is under a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court).
Finally, whether or not anyone is “forced” to submit themselves to an overtly evangelical Christian prayer in order to participate in public affairs is legally irrelevant. Wherever – as here – a sectarian invocation has the purpose or effect of advancing religion and/or affiliating the government with the Christian majority, then it is constitutionally suspect.
BILL HUGENBERG
Grand Junction

Posted 10 months, 26 days ago in 












Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.