• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists demand town remove church welcome signs

Evilroddy said:
PeterKing:

Can you or anyone explain to me how a sign saying, "The Churches of Oconomowoc Welcome You.", promotes a religion or establishes a religious mandate?
Click to expand...
Specificity is not required.

Laws as non-specific as mandating a "moment of silence" in schools have been shot down by the courts, merely because the intent was to foster prayer in schools.


If this rises to the level level of promotion/establishment, then a road sign giving directions or distance to a church, a cathedral or a temple must be verboten too.
Click to expand...
That does not follow.

Street signs pointing to a church don't indicate any sort of affiliation. Plus, usually such signs point to secular locations. There could be an issue if the only such signs were for religious buildings, but I don't know of any attempts to set up signs in such a selective manner.


And considering the money stamped by the US Mints and the bills printed by the Federal Reserve/Treasury are festooned with religious imagery and slogans, this aversion to being welcomed seems nonsensical.
Click to expand...
That has been litigated. One standard applied in that case was the degree of public display; their view was that the motto was so infrequently displayed as to be trivial or weak in its effect. A big sign at the city line will not be eligible for that kind of exception, as it is clearly on public display, in big letters.
 
Renae said:
No, poorly decided judicial decision making which does nto take into account the intent of the founders makes it "unconstitutional". One merely needs to look at the actions and words fo those who WROTE the Constitution to clearly see how absurd the notion that this town sign is somehow "unconstitutional". I pray one day we'll realize that mistake and fix it.
Click to expand...
It is so fascinating to read an uninformed pout.

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, it took on the same force as the Bill of Rights. Both are amendments, and later amendments are fully empowered to modify or even repeal earlier ones. Since part of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most (but not all) of the Bill of Rights to the states, the Establishment Clause is enforceable right down to the municipal level.

Keep in mind that this same concept applies to other amendments, such as the Second Amendment. If your analysis was correct, then individual states, counties and/or cities could ban all firearms in their jurisdictions -- because the Second Amendment would then only apply to the federal government. Other rights incorporated to the states include restrictions on unreasonable search and seizure; requirements for warrants; protections against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and more.

Incorporation is universally accepted, and the grounds for dozens of rulings since at least 1925. Let us all know when you catch up to the last 100 years or so of American jurisprudence.
 
Peter King said:
If they are official city signs, paid for and placed as only identifying signs of the city, than they may have a point. But only then. If they want to have other signs, place them just behind the first sign saying "and so do the atheists and other people of Oconomowoc".

If they are placed on private land and/or paid for by private funds, they should not sue anyone because than it can hardly by unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

How would it be unconstitutional if the city paid for and put up the sign? It does not mandate any religion. It does not mention any religion. It does not sanction any religion. It simply says the churches welcome you to the town. Would the churches and other not for profit groups be offended if it had said the businesses of _____ welcome you to the town? I cannot find a single thing in the Constitution that would make that illegal in any way.
 
pinqy said:
Again....from the Wisconsin Constitution: or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies,
The "Churches" are clearly Christian churches, and they are being given preference and public monies used to support the signs. Even if not one single person in all of Wisconsin objected to the signs, they would still be illegal under Wisconsin law.
Click to expand...

Almost true, but not quite. If the person you responded to is correct then it could be said that it is more a case of no other religion has applied rather than the council favours. The real test would be to put up a sign saying the mosques of Oconomowoc welcome our muslim neighbors. And then see if the support from the people and council is so forthcoming. And just to be an annoying atheist, throw in a sign saying the the great FSM extends a noodle to all visitors. That should get some support in the bible belt.
 
AlbqOwl said:
How would it be unconstitutional if the city paid for and put up the sign? It does not mandate any religion.
Click to expand...
Specificity is not required. Post #76 above


It simply says the churches welcome you to the town.
Click to expand...
And it's on public property, suggesting that the churches and the city have some kind of affiliation.

If the sign is on private property, it's not a problem.


Would the churches and other not for profit groups be offended if it had said the businesses of _____ welcome you to the town?
Click to expand...
If the city rented space on a sign at the border of town, saying "We all welcome you," and it included a church, and space on the sign was available to any business in the city, as far as I know it wouldn't be an issue. For example, churches are fully allowed to participate in "Adopt A Highway" programs.


I cannot find a single thing in the Constitution that would make that illegal in any way.
Click to expand...
Read posts #71, 73, 74 and 76 above. I'm sure there are others, but that's a start.
 
Visbek said:
It is so fascinating to read an uninformed pout.

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, it took on the same force as the Bill of Rights. Both are amendments, and later amendments are fully empowered to modify or even repeal earlier ones. Since part of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most (but not all) of the Bill of Rights to the states, the Establishment Clause is enforceable right down to the municipal level.

Keep in mind that this same concept applies to other amendments, such as the Second Amendment. If your analysis was correct, then individual states, counties and/or cities could ban all firearms in their jurisdictions -- because the Second Amendment would then only apply to the federal government. Other rights incorporated to the states include restrictions on unreasonable search and seizure; requirements for warrants; protections against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and more.

Incorporation is universally accepted, and the grounds for dozens of rulings since at least 1925. Let us all know when you catch up to the last 100 years or so of American jurisprudence.
Click to expand...

The arrogance of assuming someone is disagreeing only through ignorance shows how weak your intellect is.
 
Fundamentalism strikes again.
 
Visbek said:
Specificity is not required. Post #76 above



And it's on public property, suggesting that the churches and the city have some kind of affiliation.

If the sign is on private property, it's not a problem.



If the city rented space on a sign at the border of town, saying "We all welcome you," and it included a church, and space on the sign was available to any business in the city, as far as I know it wouldn't be an issue. For example, churches are fully allowed to participate in "Adopt A Highway" programs.



Read posts #71, 73, 74 and 76 above. I'm sure there are others, but that's a start.
Click to expand...

I did read them and I will stand by my post that there is nothing unconstitutional about a sign stating that the churches welcome you to a town anymore than it would be unconstitutional for the government to welcome you or for the businesses to welcome you or for the schools to welcome you or the people to welcome you.

It does not establish any religion and it does not prohibit the free exercise of any religion and it does not promote or inhibit any religion. It therefore is constitutional.
 
FastPace said:
Aristocrats and billionaires are the minority. But yeah... in practice I agree with you that the US exists to serve the will and wants of the minority that have either or both political and financial power. The majority exists--in practical terms of American daily life--to bow down before them and serve at their will.

But if you keep kicking a people they might one day decide to get up and fight back.
Click to expand...

I was addressing a specific point in a post. But no, the majority does not exist to bow down to or serve anyone.
 
The First Amendment also says, with regard to religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... The original framers of this amendment specifically had in mind incorporating in our constitution wording that would prohibit the government from establishing a State religion such as England's Church of England (The Anglicans). The government would be forbidden from declaring a particular denomination as the Nation's official religion as doing so would marginalize other denominations and create a 'favorite'. At the same time they wanted to make sure that the government never restricted our right to freely exercise our religious beliefs. I believe recent Supreme Court rulings limiting a communities right to express their religious beliefs if a violation of our Constitutional rights and contrary to the decisions of earlier courts. Evolution of law by judges is a direct attack on our separation of duties.
 
jimbo said:
If it's on public property they are.

Nothing to do with Separation of Church and State, which is not a Comstitutional issue.
Click to expand...

Nope public property is open for everyone including churches hence the term public property.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I did read them and I will stand by my post that there is nothing unconstitutional about a sign stating that the churches welcome you to a town anymore than it would be unconstitutional for the government to welcome you or for the businesses to welcome you or for the schools to welcome you or the people to welcome you.

It does not establish any religion and it does not prohibit the free exercise of any religion and it does not promote or inhibit any religion. It therefore is constitutional.
Click to expand...

which of course is the entire point of the 1st amendment.
to protect those rights.
 
Renae said:
I was talking about this lot. This group. They like going after easy targets that can't fight back, it's accede to their demands or face court costs that are far too high. This sets a precedence. This is bad. I don't like this sort of tactic no matter whose doing it for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

The good thing is that there are a lot of public law firms with excellent First Amendment lawyers who love to take on this kind of commie dope, free of charge. It's hard being an un-American collectivist when you are up against people who are a lot smarter than you are and like nothing better than kicking your backside.
 
ludin said:
Nope public property is open for everyone including churches hence the term public property.
Click to expand...
Not all public property acts as a public forum. There are no other signs of welcome and no indication that those areas are meant as public forums.
The signs, by their placement, imply government support of those churches and the Christian religion. Even if you don't think the 1st Amendment applies, the Wisconsin Constitution certainly does.
 
Visbek said:
The Constitution very likely makes it illegal.

The First Amendment bars the government from establishing a state-sponsored religion (as much to benefit the religious organization as it is the government and the polity).

The First Amendment is incorporated on the state level by the 14th Amendment.

As noted already, the questions are:
• Are the signs on government-owned property? If the land is private, the FFRF doesn't have a case.

• If the land is public, the Lemon Test applies, and would likely fail. Its purpose is not secular (as it is the churches, not the city, welcoming people; i.e. it is presenting a religious message). It advances religion, again as it is the churches (not the city) welcoming people. It would probably pass the 3rd test, but having failed the first two renders that issue moot.
Click to expand...

a welcome sign passes all muster just as any business that has a welcome sign would.
it is public land therefore it is open to anyone to put as long as they have a permit to do so.

the FFRF complaint is invalid as they have no evidence that the city is promoting anything.
the church has a 1st amendment right to post a sign welcoming people.

they are simply exercising their 1st amendment rights. if it offends these people too bad
the right to be offended is not protected.
 
And of course, the funny thing is that I bet that while everyone saying the signs should come down would say the same about any religion, most supporting the signs would not support explicitly Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu, or Wiccan, or anti-Christian signs.
 
ludin said:
Nope public property is open for everyone including churches hence the term public property.
Click to expand...

Nope. Public property is not available for anyone to stick a sign on. All public property has restrictions.
 
pinqy said:
Not all public property acts as a public forum. There are no other signs of welcome and no indication that those areas are meant as public forums.
The signs, by their placement, imply government support of those churches and the Christian religion. Even if you don't think the 1st Amendment applies, the Wisconsin Constitution certainly does.
Click to expand...

public property is public property and can be used as such it is neutral in their designation and purpose.

there doesn't have to be other signs in the area.
the 1st amendment trumps WI constitution.

they don't imply anything other than there is a sign that welcomes people.
which is protected speech by the 1st amendment.
 
jimbo said:
Nope. Public property is not available for anyone to stick a sign on. All public property has restrictions.
Click to expand...

show that it is restricted to not put a sign there. if they have permission and it has been grandfathered in over 50 years then yes they have permission.
which evidently they do since the city has not taken it down in that time frame.

they have a 1st amendment right to welcome people into the city and with permission can put the sign on public property just like any other business or organization.
the fact you or anyone else might be offended is inconsequential.
 
ludin said:
a welcome sign passes all muster just as any business that has a welcome sign would.
it is public land therefore it is open to anyone to put as long as they have a permit to do so.

the FFRF complaint is invalid as they have no evidence that the city is promoting anything.
the church has a 1st amendment right to post a sign welcoming people.

they are simply exercising their 1st amendment rights. if it offends these people too bad
the right to be offended is not protected.
Click to expand...

Now you're hedging your bet and adding as long as you have a permit. Possibly true. But I doubt if any thinking official would open that can of worms.
 
ludin said:
show that it is restricted to not put a sign there. if they have permission and it has been grandfathered in over 50 years then yes they have permission.
which evidently they do since the city has not taken it down in that time frame.

they have a 1st amendment right to welcome people into the city and with permission can put the sign on public property just like any other business or organization.
the fact you or anyone else might be offended is inconsequential.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, government is exempted from eminent domain.
 
ludin said:
public property is public property and can be used as such it is neutral in their designation and purpose.

there doesn't have to be other signs in the area.
Click to expand...
No, but other signs would have to be allowed. Not all public property is a public forum. Now...IF the area where the signs are were open to the public for general displays or welcome, then there would be no problem. But it clearly is NOT an area of free and general public expression, and so therefore not permissible.
 
jimbo said:
Now you're hedging your bet and adding as long as you have a permit. Possibly true. But I doubt if any thinking official would open that can of worms.
Click to expand...

the sign has been there for 50 years. it has probably been grandfathered in over the years by the city.
that still doesn't trump their 1st amendment right to free speech.
 
pinqy said:
No, but other signs would have to be allowed. Not all public property is a public forum. Now...IF the area where the signs are were open to the public for general displays or welcome, then there would be no problem. But it clearly is NOT an area of free and general public expression, and so therefore not permissible.
Click to expand...

show that no other signs are not allowed. you are making an argument that you can't support.

show that it isn't. you say so is not an argument.
 
jimbo said:
Generally speaking, government is exempted from eminent domain.
Click to expand...

thank you for showing that you can't refute what I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom