On Local Government: What part about ‘separation’ don’t you understand
It never ceases to amaze how difficult it is for people with religious fervor to set aside the intensity of their belief when entering the public realm. It could be the insult taken when those who do not believe the same way would dare to request that public rites, such as an invocation, should be religiously inclusive. Or, it might be the surprise they express when people don’t want to accept that their religion may not be the only one people ought to believe in.
At any rate, it is wrong and, perhaps, illegal.
The latest case of religious myopia comes from the high desert city of Lancaster. The mayor, Rex Parris, made a statement in his “State of the City” address that his was “growing a Christian community.” As reported on the “LA Now” web site, the Mayor stated, “We’re growing a Christian community, and don’t let anybody shy away from that….I need [Lancaster residents] standing up and saying we’re a Christian community, and we’re proud of that.”
His audience was described as “ministers,” so maybe he was playing for the pulpit vote. However, the remarks were public, allegedly representing the city, as most of these types of speeches are. Therefore, it could easily be inferred that his remarks represent the official policy of the city.
A 1983 Supreme Court ruling in Marsh v. Chambers found that prayer before public meetings was allowed if the prayers remained nonsectarian. In 1999, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals ruled that the Board of Education in Cleveland, OH, cannot pray before their meetings. They ruled that prayers are an illegal endorsement of religion.
In 2002, the use of invocations that specifically cited “Jesus” was ruled illegal. The court ruled that “In light of the fact that the legislative invocation given at the Burbank City Council meeting took place on government property, was authorized by the long standing policy of the city council, was part of the official agenda of the council meeting, and was for the purpose of calling for spiritual assistance in the work of the legislative body, we are satisfied that it was not ‘private speech.’”
For some reason, the zealots don’t get it. They cannot understand why people don’t believe like they do. Nor do they understand why a group might be offended by the use of a public institution to belittle their beliefs.
The most idiotic argument is that the limitation of such proselytizing in public forums is a violation of their free speech rights. This circular argument of course makes no sense. The courts have made this very clear, except to them.
There are only a few words that, if taken to heart, could solve this. “Get over it.” Religious people have many venues in which to properly express their faith. If they want control, maybe they ought to start paying property taxes on the land and buildings of which they are now exempt. ER