City must pay atheists group for violating Constitution

[Voegelin]

The settlement doesn't carry legal precedent but avoids larger payout.


By JEFF BRUMLEY, The Times-Union


Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton defended on Tuesday the city's Day of Faith anti-violence rally held in August, even though it means the city must pay an atheist group $5,000 in attorneys fees and avoid holding nonsecular events in the future . . .


The organization argued that the rally - officially called "A Day of Faith: Arming our Prayer Warriors" - was an official endorsement of religion.

"We gave the mediator a copy of the flier, which clearly called for prayer and talked about people of faith getting together to do something about violence and that they should all be prayer warriors," Kagin said.

The city countered that the event was open to the entire community and involved secular nonprofit agencies. In addition to the Christian ministers and choirs that participated, officials noted that one Jewish and one Muslim leader spoke . . .

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/012407/met_7528080.shtml

 

[CCGirl]

He is planning on paying this out of people's tax money?

 

[Voegelin]

Cheaper to pay than play.

We didn't have a constitution at the time but these atheists I'm sure would have found some reason to object to the Continental Congress asking churches to form Committees of Correspondence to inform colonists of British movements and the progress of the revolution. Probably would have sued Franklin Delano Roosevelt for singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" at a Sunday service on a warship and sued Thomas Jefferson for allowing church services in his Treasury Department.

 

[Ave Maria]

How ridiculous. What is so wrong with having a Day of Faith? I am sorry but I think some (not all) Atheists can be pretty ridiculous sometimes.

 

[Voegelin]

Trouble is, atheists won. The five grand payoff will encourage others to do the same. Lots of lawyers out there with time on their hands. Find some event with a tie to government at which faith is mentioned, write a few letters threatening to sue and BINGO..five grand in your pocket.

No more mention of prayer at events sponsored by this city. A statue of Lenin is fine, parades "celebrating" this and that (so long as religion isn't involved) are fine. All speech is protected except that which refers to God. Not exactly what the framers had in mind when they hammered out the first amendment I think.

 

[Dracil]

 

[RealDeal]

The settlement doesn't carry legal precedent but avoids larger payout.


By JEFF BRUMLEY, The Times-Union


Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton defended on Tuesday the city's Day of Faith anti-violence rally held in August, even though it means the city must pay an atheist group $5,000 in attorneys fees and avoid holding nonsecular events in the future . . .


The organization argued that the rally - officially called "A Day of Faith: Arming our Prayer Warriors" - was an official endorsement of religion.

"We gave the mediator a copy of the flier, which clearly called for prayer and talked about people of faith getting together to do something about violence and that they should all be prayer warriors," Kagin said.

The city countered that the event was open to the entire community and involved secular nonprofit agencies. In addition to the Christian ministers and choirs that participated, officials noted that one Jewish and one Muslim leader spoke . . .

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/012407/met_7528080.shtml

I agree with this group of atheists. I do feel that they need to speak out against city endorsed religious events and they weren't interested in profiting for themselves. It's fine for a city to allow religious events, but to actually endorse and/or arrange them is going too far and makes non-religious citizens feel segregated.

Why not simply have an anti-violence rally that makes all feel welcome regardless of beliefs rather than tack on the religious aspect? Believers aren't the only ones who hate violence.

 

[Ampoliros]

How ridiculous. What is so wrong with having a Day of Faith? I am sorry but I think some (not all) Atheists can be pretty ridiculous sometimes.

There isn't anything wrong with having a day of faith, so long as it isn't a government endorsed/funded/whathaveyou. The city spent over $100,000 dollars on this particular event, which, while a good idea to some extent, came across as a government endorsement of religion. So, the city said they were sorry, paid court fees, blah blah whatever.

All speech is protected except that which refers to God. Not exactly what the framers had in mind when they hammered out the first amendment I think.

All speech is protected, except for all that stuff about inciting people to violence (or something to that effect). No one was demanding that Christians not be allowed to hold parades, events, talk about their faith, preach to willing listeners, whatever on earth you wanna do. The only thing that was against the law was the government paying for you to do all of that, being as its..yes, a government endorsement of religion. Gasp.

All thats happening is that Christians are being subjected to the same rules that everyone else is. Nothing special.

 

[Ave Maria]

There isn't anything wrong with having a day of faith, so long as it isn't a government endorsed/funded/whathaveyou. The city spent over $100,000 dollars on this particular event, which, while a good idea to some extent, came across as a government endorsement of religion. So, the city said they were sorry, paid court fees, blah blah whatever.



All speech is protected, except for all that stuff about inciting people to violence (or something to that effect). No one was demanding that Christians not be allowed to hold parades, events, talk about their faith, preach to willing listeners, whatever on earth you wanna do. The only thing that was against the law was the government paying for you to do all of that, being as its..yes, a government endorsement of religion. Gasp.

All thats happening is that Christians are being subjected to the same rules that everyone else is. Nothing special.

I did not realize that the city was actually endorsing religion by having such a day.

 

[Voegelin]

I did not realize that the city was actually endorsing religion by having such a day.

Note what lawyers and activist judges have done to the first amendment. "Establishment" has become "endorsement" and "endorsement" now means "you can't mention religion".

Atheists in America sue and theaten to sue. Athiests in other countries did more:

The Bells of Russia

The Hill of Crosses

Abuse of Religious Freedom in Tibet

 

[RealDeal]

Christians in America sue and theaten to sue. Christians in other countries did more:

VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

Oh dear. Look what we see here. Everybody does it! Does that mean that you do it, or I do it? No. So quit with the passive aggressive intolerance. Atheists are not coming to get you. They just want their rights upheld just like you want yours upheld. Oftentimes people have to sue to do that, otherwise no one would listen to them. It's how the world works.

 

[burrow_owl]

100k? That's ridiculous.

Re: the OP: big deal. Atty's fees are fairly standard.

 

[MadeInOz]

Patently ridiculous.

 

[trunks2k]

I agree with the atheist group on this one. A "Day of faith" is an endorsment of religion. There's no profiting going on here, all that was paid was lawyers fees.

 

[LovesTruth]

Trouble is, atheists won. The five grand payoff will encourage others to do the same. Lots of lawyers out there with time on their hands. Find some event with a tie to government at which faith is mentioned, write a few letters threatening to sue and BINGO..five grand in your pocket.

No more mention of prayer at events sponsored by this city. A statue of Lenin is fine, parades "celebrating" this and that (so long as religion isn't involved) are fine. All speech is protected except that which refers to God. Not exactly what the framers had in mind when they hammered out the first amendment I think.

Just to be precise, the atheists did not win. They merely bluffed and the city folded.

Had the city chosen to laugh at the atheists, they atheists would have sulked away. Or they might have sued and lost... as the ACLU and others did repeatedly over similar government events such as these:

National Day of Prayer
Presidential Prayer Breakfast
National Day of Thanksgiving to God
IN GOD WE TRUST national motto
WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE Ohio motto
Paid military chaplains
Paid Senate chaplain
Paid prison chaplains
Singing Christian hymns at public events
Opening public events with prayer
Legislators voting to recognize National Bible Week and similar events

The list goes on.

 

[LovesTruth]

And if the city had decided to laugh at the bluff by the atheists and were sued, how much would the defense of the lawsuit have cost the city?

Answer:

ZERO, ZIP, NADA. Nothing. The Alliance Defense Fund will gladly defend any city in these circumstances for no cost whatsoever. We Christians gladly donate our tithes and offerings to Jesus Christ to make this possible.

For more information about defeating atheists who bluff like this, see these websites:

http://alliancedefensefund.org/main/default.aspx

http://aclj.org/

http://www.rutherford.org/

http://www.thomasmore.org/

Or look up the websites of the other fine law websites in my signature below.

 

[Dannager]

We Christians gladly donate our tithes and offerings to Jesus Christ to make this possible.

You really ought to talk with those organizations you donate to, then. I hate to break it to you like this, but Jesus Christ doesn't actually get any of your money.

 

[kermit]

Note what lawyers and activist judges have done to the first amendment. "Establishment" has become "endorsement" and "endorsement" now means "you can't mention religion".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note that it says "respecting an establishment". This means that not just establishment of religion is forbidden, but any action that hints as establishment such as financial endorsement.

And before you get hung up on the fact that the 1st Amendment only refers to congress please remember that it is settled law that the 14th Amendment applies the US Constitution to all levels and branches of government.

 

[flicka]

I wouldn't even have a problem with the city recognizing an even like this if it was organized and paid for by the local churches, but using tax money to fund a religious event is a no brainer. Sometimes I wonder what people are thinking when they do this kind of thing...and then wonder why people make a fuss.

It's almost as if they purposely cross the line just so people can cry "persecution" when they get called on it. Almost....

 

[Bulldog]

And before you get hung up on the fact that the 1st Amendment only refers to congress

Which it does, and was its only intention.

please remember that it is settled law that the 14th Amendment applies the US Constitution to all levels and branches of government.

No, the 14th amendment applies the 14th amendment to the states. This isn't even taking into account the fact that the 14th amendment was completly opposed to the spirit of the 1st amendment and was ratified under dubious circumstances.