Posted 9 months, 25 days ago in 
Loading ...
Bill Grant’s Jan. 27 column, “The culture wars in Grand Junction and Mesa County,” aptly documents the ongoing conflict between law and religion in the Grand Valley. However, the term “culture wars” is a misnomer. What we have here is “subversive insurgency.”
Our constitutional democratic republic was founded to promote “ordered liberty” – the most essential components of which are found in the Bill of Rights (particularly the First and Fifth Amendments). The First contains the establishment clause, which prohibits governmental endorsement of religion, while the Fifth protects private property rights.
The conduct of local religionists is “subversive” because they covertly seek to undercut laws already duly enacted by competent legislators and interpreted by mostly Christian judges. Their conduct is also “insurgent” because they overtly violate the very laws that were enacted to protect them – and us — from the governmental abuses they often decry.
The tension between “order” and “liberty” is a constant theme in our political history. Luther protested ecclesiastical order to achieve freedom of conscience. Our founders revolted against royal order to achieve political and religious liberty. The Federalists of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (supported by the established clergy) accused republicans like Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, and James Madison (supported by minority Protestant sects) of jeopardizing the “good order” of the new nation by promoting freedom of religion and speech (i.e., sedition).
While initiative, referendum, lobbying, and even civil disobedience by private citizens are recognized and accepted methods of seeking change to existing laws, those methods — when employed by public officials already sworn to uphold the constitution and those laws when they took their oaths of office – threaten the very fabric of “ordered liberty”, and thus properly expose scofflaw planning commissioners and county commissioners to personal financial liability for the consequences of their unlawful actions.
BILL HUGENBERG
Grand Junction
17 Responses to “Establishment clause prohibits our government from endorsing any religion”
Posted January 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m not sure Mr. Hugenberg has correctly identified the local “subversive insurgency” membership. That term would seem to more aptly apply to himself and his fellow atheists rather than imagined “scofflaw planning commissioners and county commissioners” engaging in “unlawful actions”.
Hugenberg’s oft repeated and tiresome threats only seem to confirm his frustration that his Letters to the Editor are not working. Perhaps he should just “put up or shut up” regarding public official “personal financial liability” from his threatened legal actions.
It’s time to move on.
Posted January 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What isn’t working? The city council acknowledged their invocation was in violation of the First Amendment. Two of the three county commissioners have stopped saying “Jesus” and the third has changed the order in an attempt to stave off a lawsuit, thereby tacitly admitting what she was doing was not right.
I’d say things were going swimmingly.
Posted January 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Seems the burden of answering relevant questions & defending illegal positions rests squarely on the shoulders of the local pious & overtly religious ones, Ironedge.
Fortunately we have bright folks like Hugenburg to shine a spotlight on the lunatics.
Posted January 29th, 2009 at 8:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A bit of advice Mr. Hugenberg from one of your avid readers. When writing a letter to the editor, avoid mirrors. The influence of your reflection is somewhat apparent in your writing.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 12:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bill Hugenberg has an excellent blog entry on the Free Press site today - “What the Alliance Defense Fund does not want you to know about invocations”.
Lengthy, but a good summary of the case law involved, and how the ADF misrepresents the facts.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 12:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What Scott is trying to say is if we can get you to read the atheist interpretation of the law, and specially selected quotes which back the atheists up, and we can get you to read it often enough that you begin to believe it, then we can achieve our goal of creating a Godless society without ever having to prove anything in a court of law. What the atheists are trying to do here is create the impression in your mind that if you believe in God, you must abandon your beliefs because you can’t win. Ask yourself this question; If the atheists truly believe that the law was on their side, wouldn’t they just have taken the matter to court long ago? And if you ask them why they haven’t done that, what they will tell you is that they just didn’t want to make trouble for our community.
The truth is they don’t care about our community. The truth is, they think they can achieve their goals through propaganda and threats. The evidence of their disingenuous efforts and their false propaganda is the fact that they have been making trouble and threatening our community and our elected leaders for some time now. And they know that if they filed a legal action, that would put an end to their trouble making, and they also know that they can’t win that way.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 1:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“What Scott is trying to say is if we can get you to read the atheist interpretation of the law, and specially selected quotes which back the atheists up, and we can get you to read it often enough that you begin to believe it, then we can achieve our goal of creating a Godless society without ever having to prove anything in a court of law.”
If it is the atheists who are only presenting selected quotes, why doesn’t the ADF even mention the Allegheny case? Could it be because it completely refutes all of their arguments?
“What the atheists are trying to do here is create the impression in your mind that if you believe in God, you must abandon your beliefs because you can’t win.”
Completely wrong, although you don’t seem to be want to accept any other interpretation. The atheists are trying to uphold the Constitution. You are defending those who are not. Didn’t you used to call yourself “American Patriot”?
“Ask yourself this question; If the atheists truly believe that the law was on their side, wouldn’t they just have taken the matter to court long ago? And if you ask them why they haven’t done that, what they will tell you is that they just didn’t want to make trouble for our community.”
Yeah, it’s so hard to imagine why members of the community wouldn’t want to make trouble for their community. Of course, if you don’t think of them as members of the community, this question makes sense.
“The truth is they don’t care about our community.”
The truth is that you have no basis for making that judgment. You don’t know anything of the sort.
“The truth is, they think they can achieve their goals through propaganda and threats.”
The truth is, you have no basis for making this judgment either. How many of the atheist meetings have you attended, AP? Are you clairvoyant, or just assuming again?
“The evidence of their disingenuous efforts and their false propaganda is the fact that they have been making trouble and threatening our community and our elected leaders for some time now. And they know that if they filed a legal action, that would put an end to their trouble making, and they also know that they can’t win that way.”
This is one of the most illogical things you have ever said, and I’m including the anti-gun conspiracy you accused them of last year. The evidence that the atheists are disingenuous and are presenting false propaganda is that they have been presenting their arguments for some time? Talk about assuming your conclusion! I suppose if you have no actual counter-argument then this is all you can do. I don’t suppose you have a relevant court case to cite that contradicts all the cases in favor of the atheist’s side?
I didn’t think so.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 2:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
For well over a year now, I have been listening to Scott make the same arguments. He continues to assert that he is protecting the constitution . This gives insight into what he thinks of himself. Your atheists are not the new Marshall in town, Scott. They are simply a small, special interest group trying to assert their agenda by means of threats and propaganda. What is holding you back from filing your slam dunk legal case? Wouldn’t that settle the issue once and for all? You talk of community, yet what have the atheists ever done for the community? You don’t feed the hungry. There is no adopt a highway program by the atheists. Your sole purpose in life appears to be trying to prevent others from the free exercise of their religion. How many times have you said that the majority opinion doesn’t count. That is just another way of saying your group doesn’t give a damn what anyone thinks.
You are pushing an agenda and you are trying to disguise it as a public service. And the only real trouble you are having in doing that is that people just don’t believe you. There is just too much evidence to the contrary. Your group berates and belittles the community, our elected officials. You mock our beliefs and try to force your beliefs down our throat. You can’t win politically. You can’t win in the court of public opinion, yet you continue to assert that you have a slam-dunk case. And at the same time, you refuse to put your case to the test in a court of law.
You ask us to believe in your sincerity, and in the same breath you compare our belief in God to an invisible Pink Unicorn (your words, Scott). You challenge us to prove the existence of God to your non-believers, yet you cannot prove that God does not exist, and we have not ask you to do so, because we respect your right to believe and your free exercise of that right. All we ask is the same right, but apparently that is too much to ask. The truth is that you want to force your will on other people and since we will not accept your atheism voluntarily, the next logical step for you is to file whatever legal action you feel is necessary to accomplish your forced agenda.
You have sent your demand letter, and it has been respectfully declined. If you have a case, take it to court. We are all law abiding citizens. In a civilized world, that is the way it is done. Yet you refuse to take that step and now you have adopted the tactics of an aggressive panhandler. You are making a nuisance of yourself. If your atheist group will not avail itself of due process, then at least have the common courtesy to understand that your repeated rhetoric is an annoyance to others. It is time to put up or shut up. Step up to the plate, Scotty. Be a man. You besmirch the good name of our community leaders by accusing them of breaking the law. You continuously assert that you know that this I the case. If you are truly interested in protecting the law, aren’t you obligated to take the next step and prove your accusations? Why would you deny those you accuse the opportunity to clear their name? What are you afraid of? It is time for you to practice what you preach.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 2:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Didn’t you say you were hiding your identity and the fact that you were an atheist for your own selfish reasons? Yet you are asking us to believe that you attend the public atheist meetings, at Mesa Mall. If you lie about one thing, why not another? Why would anyone take your word for anything at this point.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 2:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You must practice, AP. No one coulf misrepresent the situation so completely without practicing.
The atheists have asked (not demanded) that the local officials adhere to the guidelines established by the Supreme Court. One group has acknowldged the validity of that request and acceded. Another group is resisting. It may very well come down to a lawsuit, and steps are being taken along those lines. That it hasn’t happened yet is irrelevant. You are simply assuming that it is not happening because it hasn’t happened yet. Have patience. You will be eating crow soon enough.
I have never said that majority opinion doesn’t count. I have said that the opinion of the majority of the population does not decide matters of constitutionality. You have misquoted me on that many times.
No one is having atheism forced down their throat, or having their beliefs mocked. The athiests have recognized the right of the local officials to have a prayer from day one. You have never once acknowledged this fact. On the contrary, you have repeatedly claimed that the atheists have demanded that the prayers be stopped completely. This is false. This has been explained to you many times, and you claim to have obtained a copy of the original letter to the city council. I can only assume that you are intentionally misrepresenting the atheist’s position.
Just wait, AP. I’m sorry if things aren’t happening as fast as you want them to. But don’t assume that because they haven’t happened yet they never will. You know what happens when you assume.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix,
“Didn’t you say you were hiding your identity and the fact that you were an atheist for your own selfish reasons?”
No, I didn’t. I said I was involved with a group that would not allow me to continue participating if the higher-ups knew I was an atheist. I am not participating in a manner that requires me to lie about my religious status, and I am not prepared to explain my reasons in public. They are not selfish, in any case.
“Yet you are asking us to believe that you attend the public atheist meetings, at Mesa Mall. If you lie about one thing, why not another? Why would anyone take your word for anything at this point.”
Because I haven’t lied about anything. If you don’t believe me, that’s not my concern. Don’t be surprised if I turn out to be right, though.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 2:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As someone who supports what Scott and Mr. Hugenberg are doing here I want to make the point that it is not only atheists that concur. Because I do and I am not.
On the other hand, I have no need to explain my beliefs or make public displays of my great piety. I accept Jesus’ advice here: that those who feel such a need have probably already received their reward in full. My beliefs and my faith is between me and that which I believe in. I don’t need public affirmation. And I don’t need county commissioners operating on the public dole dressing up their political ambitions in a cloak of religiosity, especially one particular brand. Its divisive, its self-serving, its illegal, and its assuredly not what the one they claim to be their savior taught.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, please Scott, you presume to lecture me about assuming. Please tell me, did you ask the “group that you are involved with” if they would allow you to participate as an atheist? No, you assumed they wouldn‘t You didn’t ask because to do so would be tantamount to telling them you were an atheist, so you just decided for your own reasons to assume and withhold that info from them. Of course, with your atheistic values and morals, you don’t see that as lying and further, you expect us to agree with you. If all of this is part of the belief system that you advocate, why in God’s name would anyone want to emulate an atheist. You had better hope there isn’t a judgment day or you might get to experience that global warming. Shame on you, Scott. I thought you were better than that.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 3:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As I said, I have my reasons. You don’t know what they are, so you do not have standing to place a value judgment on what I am doing.
Didn’t Jesus say something about judging others?
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 4:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And yes, AP. I am lecturing you about assuming.
You have assumed you know what the atheist’s “agenda” is.
You have assumed you know why they are doing what they are doing.
You have assumed the atheists do not contribute to the community.
You have assumed you know what an atheist actually is.
You have assumed wrong on every count, yet you have repeatedly ignored any and all attempts to tell you otherwise. You don’t seem to want to know what atheists really are, because then they might not fit into that little shoebox you keep trying to fit them in and they might not turn out to be as bad as you want them to be.
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 4:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, it’s not his fault; he’s an addict. Self righteous indignation is highly addictive! Check it:
http://www.davidbrin.com/addiction.html
Posted January 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP said, “why in God’s name would anyone want to emulate an atheist”. I find it this quote ammusing. I have no idea why anybody would do anything in “God’s name”. Seems rather blasphemous to me.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.