Thursday, August 11, 2011
Foot, Meet Mouth
The blog of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is featuring the Campbell County (Virginia) Board of Supervisors' defiance of the law of the land. Informed of the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, widely recognized as the most conservative of the Circuit Courts, that the regular use of sectarian invocations at government meetings is unconstitutional, they were unrepentant.
In the Circuit Court case, the Forsyth County (North Carolina) Board of Commissioners had a policy of offering all religious congregations in the county an opportunity to deliver invocations at board meetings. The court agreed that:
... the policy states that it is "not intended, and shall not be implemented or construed in any way, to affiliate the Board with, nor express the Board's preference for, any faith or religious denomination."However,
Take-all-comers policies that do not discourage sectarian prayer will inevitably favor the majoritarian faith in the community at the expense of religious minorities living therein. This effect creates real burdens on citizens — particularly those who attend meetings only sporadically — for they will have to listen to someone professing religious beliefs that they do not themselves hold as a condition of attendance and participation."In the face of this, the response of Chairman of the Campbell County Board, Steve Shockley, was:
"The 4th Circuit has come out with a new decision on Friday that holds that all invocations must be nonsectarian, and that "In Jesus' name we pray" or "the Son" violate the separation of church and state," he read.There can hardly be a clearer statement that belief in Christianity is a condition of attendance and participation in the government of Campbell County.
Then looking at those gathered in attendance, Shockley said, "If you're offended by the name of Christ or Lord and Savior, you are welcome to leave the room."
The only good thing about this despicable abuse of his governmental office is that Shockley has guaranteed that the ACLU will have an extremely easy time of it when it sues to end the practice.
.
Comments:
<< Home
"There can hardly be a clearer statement that belief in Christianity is a condition of attendance and participation in the government of Campbell County."
Oh, come now. "You must be a Christian to participate in the government of Campbell County." would be vastly clearer. As it is, not only is it not even clear the Chairdope's formulation says you have to believe in Christianity to participate but it doesn't say that at all.
What it is saying is that you have to be willing to stand through a religious service in order to participate and shouldn't that be entirely enough to object to?
Oh, come now. "You must be a Christian to participate in the government of Campbell County." would be vastly clearer. As it is, not only is it not even clear the Chairdope's formulation says you have to believe in Christianity to participate but it doesn't say that at all.
What it is saying is that you have to be willing to stand through a religious service in order to participate and shouldn't that be entirely enough to object to?
# posted by 
: 6:22 PM
: 6:22 PM
Oh, come now. "You must be a Christian to participate in the government of Campbell County." would be vastly clearer.
I was quoting the fomulation by the 4th Circuit.
As it is, not only is it not even clear the Chairdope's formulation says you have to believe in Christianity to participate but it doesn't say that at all.
Again, that was the 4th Circuit's conclusion in a much less egregious case and I agree with the court. The point of Shockley's statement is "we Christians are in charge here; it doesn't make any difference what the law or any court says; and if you don't like it, get out!"
What it is saying is that you have to be willing to stand through a religious service in order to participate and shouldn't that be entirely enough to object to?
Sure. But in this case they went well beyond that.
Post a Comment
I was quoting the fomulation by the 4th Circuit.
As it is, not only is it not even clear the Chairdope's formulation says you have to believe in Christianity to participate but it doesn't say that at all.
Again, that was the 4th Circuit's conclusion in a much less egregious case and I agree with the court. The point of Shockley's statement is "we Christians are in charge here; it doesn't make any difference what the law or any court says; and if you don't like it, get out!"
What it is saying is that you have to be willing to stand through a religious service in order to participate and shouldn't that be entirely enough to object to?
Sure. But in this case they went well beyond that.
<< Home
