Patrick Elliott of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent Sioux Falls City Attorney David Pfeifle a letter Thursday telling him that the [Siouxland] Freethinkers want the religious artwork removed....
"It is inappropriate and unconstitutional for a government entity to display proselytizing Christian messages to its citizens, including on government equipment and facilities," he wrote...
Pfeifle indicated Friday that he hadn't read Elliott's letter yet. "I'll review it," he said, "kick it around a few days and respond."
November 2, 2014
City invites kids to paint the snowplows, ends up with an Establishment Clause problem.
It's hard to believe anyone would want the face of a snowplow covered with religious material. If religion is important and sacred to you, why would you want it on a snowplow? But 2 of the 27 snowplows in Sioux Falls, South Dakota got designs with the words "Jesus Christ" or "Happy birthday, Jesus."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
83 comments:
Any devil worship comments ? I guess they would be OK.
I'm not religious, but it seems to me if the government solicits kids to paint and doesn't put any restrictions on the messages, then it can't enforce anti-religious viewpoint based discrimination against Christians ex-post facto.
Next time, they need to have one of the kids paint some reference to Islam. A crescent moon or something.
It's the only way to put a halt to this nonsense.
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Progtards don't seem to understand those six inconvenient words.
jaed: "Next time, they need to have one of the kids paint some reference to Islam. A crescent moon or something.
It's the only way to put a halt to this nonsense."
Are you kidding? Thats the only way to ensure the lefties get fully on board with it.
Seems to me that any Christian message would be the last thing you see as the snowplow passes over you or your car.
The established state religion (i.e. moral philosophy) is libertinism or generational liberalism, including sacrifice of around two million unwanted human lives in planned parenthood rituals.
Perhaps Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) would like to comment on this degenerate religion, that also includes funding of anti-Christian propaganda, but notably lacking anti-Islamic propaganda. FFRF is not concerned with the establishment of a state religion, but are concerned that it is not their religion.
Oh, well. No one lost their head over "Piss Christ", unlike the FFRF religion which oversees the annual decapitation of millions of uniquely vulnerable human lives.
I want to find some old rich guy with a bee up his ass and start a foundation that goes around suing people for stupid shit.
He could have gotten equal time by volunteering and painting atheistic slogans on a snow plow. Except he didn't.
COEXIST! or you are a bigot.
FFRF is not even concerned with expansion of philosophies to universal or extra-universal domains (i.e. faith). They are notably quiet on the exploitation and corruption of science outside of constrained frames of reference in time and space.
So, FFRF has its preferred religion: libertinism, and its preferred faith: atheism. FFRF is an oxymoron. Neither freedom from religion nor faith exist in the real world, anywhere, ever, and certainly not at FFRF.
Freethinkers aren't.
And maybe the slogans would remind people to drive more carefully in the snow...?
The Drill SGT has the measure of this. The Establishment Clause represents no problem whatsoever. The invitation was viewpoint neutral. To discriminate against the religious messages after the fact would be to support the anti-religion message.
The answer is either to leave the snowplows as they and waste city resources defending the viewpoint neutral decision. Or the city will be forced to repaint the plows and waste resources.
This is an example of how "loser pays" would adjust the incentives of the parties appropriately.
I have no love for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, but I am unconvinced some adult did not put a couple of kids up to this.
We are a very religious family, but I don't think my kids would think about writing Happy Birthday Jesus on a snowplow. A manger scene? Possibly.
The Free Thinker Society do not live up to their name.
FIRST AMENDMENT
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. - See more at: http://constitution.laws.com/1st-amendment#sthash.8mBijRkQ.dpuf
I don't see "from" in the language.
Reign on, scarecrow. Blood on the plow.
Progtards don't seem to understand those six inconvenient words.
The do, they are just trying to "transcend" them.
Birches: yours might not, but children from a religious upbringing? Absolutely.
Broken windows. Progressives spend so much time stamping out the innocuous they end up with the inane.
Religiously I empathize with the kids. But in their defense the culture has spent a lot of time telling them their viewpoint is wrong because if the intolerance of the self-titled tolerant. Give an inch and expect a mile to be taken when every inch is previously fought by progs.
Although, do you even know any Christians? Do you even know any Christian children? Of course Christians may find it appropriate to express their faith in an art object. Or should Christians restrict themselves to expressions of faith on only Althouse-approved media?
That should be Althouse, not although. Sheesh spellchecker.
Deliberate attacks on little kids who put their faith in Jesus at Christ-mas. Doing that sounds oddly dangerous to me.
But what do I know?. The illiterate idiots on the SCOTUS back in 1962 never learned how to read the First Amendment; and everybody has hidden under their discovery as authority to miss read it since then.
It's not freedom from religion, it's freedon of religion.
"If religion is important and sacred to you, why would you want it on a snowplow?"
Eh? Is there something terribly inherently sacrilegious or nasty about snow plows which would demean or negate a religious theme?
And, believe it or not, most kids are not Constitutional scholars.
Salem Mass cop cars have witches on them.
kiss kiss
Can't God part the snow without a plow?
"If religion is important and sacred to you, why would you want it on a snowplow?"
Or a . . .
bumper sticker
dashboard
billboard
neon sign
tattoo
t shirt
short shorts
painted ceiling
cave art
sidewalk
16 wheeler
checkbook
licence plate bracket
sword
suit of armor
greeting card
barn
tractor
food truck
dog collar
wallpaper
hipster shades
subway car
gay and hetero porn
birthday cake
to name just a few examples I can recall offhand.
steve uhr said...
Can't God part the snow without a plow?
He can, but generally He waits for a reason. He's through just showing off.
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
You know, just like liberals have redefined the equal protection clause to apply to things it never meant to be (like gay marriage), we should do the same thing in regards to the first amendment.
Modern religions don't necessarily worship a God, but they worship a dogma all the same. We need to update our definition of the word 'religion' to include the antiscientific worship of the purely social construct of 'equality' as well as classical religions.
All this Government money going directly towards funding a cult belief in equality being baked into the universe is offensive, and my tax dollars should not be going to funding religions I do not subscribe to.
Right, lefties?
Sioux Falls has employed a City Attorney smart enough to keep his mouth shut, wait a few days, and get some advice. They've done well.
"If religion is important and sacred to you, why would you want it on a snowplow?"
Easy answer. It shows devotion to God. Christians, like most religious people, are expected to demonstrate their faith in their acts.
David:
God parted the waters so his chosen people may escape their bondage. Those people are supposed to have faith in God and set an example for the rest of humanity. Our lives are an exercise of religious (i.e. moral) virtue in an often inhospitable world. Earth is a proving ground for spirits. There will be a test.
You'd think that the "Siouxland Freethinkers" would have bigger fish to fry like going after slogans on coinage or words in pledges, but no, the big he-men would rather go after a couple kids. I smell cowardice - the same kind that goes after Christians while giving Muslims a pass.
"If religion is important and sacred to you, why would you want it on a snowplow?"
This asked about the religion whose key figure died on a Roman cross.
Scandal and inappropriateness is a fundamental part of the testimony.
Upon further reflection, I'd lump the "Siouxland Freethinkers" with the ersatz vaginas who went after the wedding chapel preachers in Idaho. Too pussy to go after the real thing, they go for the weaker targets instead.
So if the freethinkers spawn had painted the words, "God is Dead" on the plow, everyone would have been fine with that?
I'm not religious, but it seems to me if the government solicits kids to paint and doesn't put any restrictions on the messages, then it can't enforce anti-religious viewpoint based discrimination against Christians ex-post facto.
Isn't there an implicit "nothing that might be offensive" rule to these sorts of things? These are kids; if one of them had written "POOP" in big brown letters I doubt the city would have left it there either.
At any given moment there are millions of organisms chasing each other in the Animal Kingdom. God obviously loves a good chase. We get it. Snowplow painting is just unimpressive apologizing. I personally won't be convinced of His Legitimacy until He comes down and runs with the bulls of Pamplona, at least once, without security or escort. A no-show for how long? People are becoming skeptical. For good reason.
You'd think that the "Siouxland Freethinkers" would have bigger fish to fry like going after slogans on coinage or words in pledges
"Going after" how? The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear it has no problem with the either the pledge or the coin motto.
The establishment clause suit is petty bullcrap. The Christian hate from the Althouse regulators is priceless.
"Going after" how? The Supreme Court has made it crystal clear it has no problem with the either the pledge or the coin motto.
That explains a lot actually. The "freethinkers" are hemmed at the top and must limit their harassments to areas SCOTUS hasn't ruled on (yet). Got it.
The Christian hate from the Althouse regulators is priceless.
I agree with that when construed as written.
BTW, "Siouxland Freethinkers" is homophonically hysterical.
Annnnnnnnd garage pops in with precisely the 3 inch wide, 1 inch "deep" analysis one would expect from an advanced high school woodshop scholar.
LOL
Bob R: "Bob R said...
So if the freethinkers spawn had painted the words, "God is Dead" on the plow, everyone would have been fine with that?"
Well, do you mean "have been fine with that" or do you mean "launch a lawsuit"?
We are, after all, speaking about a society where it's just peachy dropping crucifixes in urine and calling it "art" (and often times lobbing in a few state-provided bucks as well).
garage: "People are becoming skeptical."
Well, certainly not the "blacky's".
What are your thoughts on that?
It was a dumbass idea from the start. God forbid government appear professional and competent.
That explains a lot actually. The "freethinkers" are hemmed at the top and must limit their harassments to areas SCOTUS hasn't ruled on (yet). Got it.
Yes, exactly. They're like anti-abortion activists in that respect.
We are, after all, speaking about a society where it's just peachy dropping crucifixes in urine and calling it "art" (and often times lobbing in a few state-provided bucks as well).
Meanwhile, back in reality, Republicans responded to the crucifix incident with an endless series of histrionic rants paired with attempts to defund the NEA.
The behavior of the "Siouxland Freethinkers" looks quite restrained in comparison.
Annnnnnnnd garage pops in with precisely the 3 inch wide, 1 inch "deep" analysis one would expect from an advanced high school woodshop scholar.
Jesus was an alleged Carpenter. Is that why you reply multiple times to every comment thread I appear in? I can't answer 90% of your questions to Me. I'm not Christ I can assure you! I don't have nearly the Time either. Isn't Randomly capitalizing words Annoying?
The underlying problem is that the Govt is trying to be "fun" so that people don't realize how inefficient it is.
We can't cut their funding....they let us paint their snowplows. They're fun!!!
The Bureaucrat who thought up this lame idea should have his or her salary cut by 10% for being lame.
Yes, exactly. Evolution of human life following conception is equivalent to evolution of human life approaching a natural, accidental, or premeditated (e.g. abortion) death. Actually, the viability standard is sufficient justify aborting nearly half of the human population and likely more. The faith in spontaneous conception will relieve many people from suffering a burden and psychological perturbations stemming from cognitive dissonance.
It's ironic that FFRF-minded people are more likely to embrace this false faith than people from the general population. Oh, well. The establishment of a libertine religion rationalized by a false faith seems to appeal to not a few amoral and "moral" women and men. Dissociation of risk is a potent opiate for the masses and elites, atheists and agnostics, alike.
At first glance, the pushback against religious sentiments seem like the usual liberal grousing but it goes deeper than that. There seems to be underlying feelings of guilt and shame and remorse that result in lashing out at "anything" outside their sphere of experience.
The problem is that our society is diverse. There cannot be a uniform culture in a heterogeneous society without authoritarianism. This is why all open or unprincipled societies suffer a progressive degeneration into a left-wing regime.
FFRF simply represents the interests of a progressive religion and faith. That should be obvious when they give their blessing to the religious exemption under the First Amendment for state-sponsored human sacrifices in planned parenthood rituals.
Were any snowplows decorated with Wiccan symbols? Maybe there was a depiction of the sun. Zoroastrian! Maybe there was a depiction of a bird. Pagan religion!
Time to change their name to match their mission statement: Freedom From Christianity Foundation.
The underlying problem is that the Govt is trying to be "fun" so that people don't realize how inefficient it is
You work for the government. I always get a kick out of that. I'm wondering if you're not part of problem you describe. Be the difference! Youcandooit.
Tom Gallagher:
First, we have to acknowledge the compromises required to maintain order in a diverse society. Look to the Islamic state, and other left-wing regimes, to know our future. The degradation of civilized people is historically a progressive condition and there is no cause to believe our civilization will enjoy a better fate.
Second, it's necessary to note that "secular" interests are, in fact, both religious and faith-based. Everyone has a faith (e.g. atheists and agnostics) and religion (moral laws) to direct and moderate their lives and behavior. FFRF and similar-minded are merely competing interest, normalizing their preferred religion and faith (i.e. outside of a constrained frame of reference in time and space).
Finally, anti-Christians have indeed experienced setbacks. For one, they can no longer refer to human life as "clumps of cells" in polite company. This may be due to the influx of Catholic men and women through our Southern border, that may represent a temporary or permanent change in democratic demographics. This is what motivated a renewed effort to paint men as potential rapists, in order to exploit the moral ambiguity of impregnation through rape-rape. Or is it just rape?
"histrionic rants paired with attempts to defund the NEA."
Can you explain why using tax dollars to fund the NEA is a legitimate use of the federal purse, while supporting the state of Israel is not?
Why have the kids paint the snowplows anyway? This is the strangest idea!!!
Snowplows are utilitarian vehicles, not decorative or ornamental objects. However they were decorated, one suspects that they will look pretty awful after a season of use.
As for the particular messages - surely this asinine idea created a genuine open access viewpoint neutral public forum? And in that case, there surely isn't an Establishment Clause violation, because the government isn't speaking - some random member of the public is speaking, or painting, or whatever.
I think this was the STUPIDEST idea in the first place, but it cannot be an Establishment Clause violation.
However they were decorated, one suspects that they will look pretty awful after a season of use.
The best thing for steel around water, ice and salt is paint. Slathers of paint. They are probably painted every year anyway.
I'm surprised the City didn't sell commercial advertising space on the plows. for example: "Get Plowed At Sam's Bar."
MadisonMan - that's the type of commentary the local government would be getting from me if this were my municipality. This story is making me feel better about my town government!!!
Chickelit - indeed, but isn't there a special sort of paint that is supposed to be used on these types of vehicles for just that reason? These vehicles are, for lack of a better word, battered and ground up by their proper use, and they should have the proper paint jobs for that use.
From the article "While there seems to be no case studies across the country that exactly match this one" - one would think not!!!
The humor of it all has now overwhelmed me.
Can you explain why using tax dollars to fund the NEA is a legitimate use of the federal purse, while supporting the state of Israel is not?
No, I don't care to "explain" positions I never espoused.
garage: "I can't answer 90% of your questions to Me."
And you apparently can't recognize when a question is asked of you and when one is not asked of you.
Again, as expected.
At this point, along with your "blacky" blackout, one has to assume a you've hit your limit on libations.
n.n said...
David:
God parted the waters so his chosen people may escape their bondage. Those people are supposed to have faith in God and set an example for the rest of humanity. Our lives are an exercise of religious (i.e. moral) virtue in an often inhospitable world. Earth is a proving ground for spirits. There will be a test.
Actually, the test was last week. There are no makeups either.
That's interesting. Do the painters also have a First Amendment right here? If one group painted a giant penis and caption slogan OBAMA SUCKS COCKS would that have to stay?
If one of the children had written "The state income tax is hereby repealed.", would it have the force of an edict from the State government, establishing South Dakota as a tax-free State?
No? Why not? After all, the State authorized the kids to put whatever they wanted to on the plows.
Still no? Well then I guess neither does the religious message represent establishing a religion by the State.
Or so it seems to me.
@Revenant
Meanwhile, back in reality, Republicans responded to the crucifix incident with an endless series of histrionic rants paired with attempts to defund the NEA.
Meanwhile, back in reality, Christians responded to the crucifix incident with reasoned discourse on why it was so offensive to them along with arguments about why they objected to such "art" being subsidized with their tax dollars. All without once threatening anyone with beheading or other violence.
Fixed it for ya.
@Ralph Hyatt: A repub opining out loud is a "histrionic rant" by definition.
SomeoneHasToSayIt: If one of the children had written "The state income tax is hereby repealed.", would it have the force of an edict from the State government, establishing South Dakota as a tax-free State?
No? Why not?
Because South Dakota is already an income-tax-free state. :)
Good point, though.
"Patrick Elliott of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent Sioux Falls City Attorney David Pfeifle a letter Thursday telling him that the [Siouxland] Freethinkers want the religious artwork removed."
I'd think the City would be on strong Constitutional grounds here, although I can understand that they probably don't want to spend City money on a possibly costly legal battle.
But I'd hope a mere letter wouldn't be enough. At least wait until they file a lawsuit, and then see if the City can find a foundation to provide a free legal defense?
As for me, I think I'd have painted a crushed mailbox on it. But I don't see why religious expression would be treated any differently than any other type of expression.
'I don't care to "explain" positions I never espoused.'
"America has zero national interest in protecting the right of Jews to live surrounded by the single largest population of Jew-haters remaining on Earth."
I'll take that issue more seriously when state universities stop advertising diversity. Talk about annoying religious proselytizing...
Just imagine how happy you'd be if there were taxpayer-funded snow plows driving around with "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" painted on them.
Would you see that as government endorsement of Islam? I certainly would.
'I don't care to "explain" positions I never espoused.'
"America has zero national interest in protecting the right of Jews to live surrounded by the single largest population of Jew-haters remaining on Earth."
Sigh.
Why don't you go back and read the previous comment, and pay attention this time? Here, I'll bold the important bit in the hopes you'll notice it:
"Can you explain why using tax dollars to fund the NEA is a legitimate use of the federal purse, while supporting the state of Israel is not?"
Get it yet? No? I'll spell it out for you: I never claimed that the NEA was a legitimate use of the federal purse.
Meanwhile, back in reality, Christians responded to the crucifix incident with reasoned discourse on why it was so offensive to them along with arguments about why they objected to such "art" being subsidized with their tax dollars.
Fixed it for ya.
If by "fixed it for ya" you mean "lied", then yes, I suppose you did. The photographer received death threats, and prints of his photograph were vandalized in several museums.
And, of course, the "reasoned discourse" consisted in part of US Senators condemning the work as blasphemous, as if the US Senate had any business whatsoever commenting on what is or isn't blasphemy.
All without once threatening anyone with beheading or other violence.
Like I noted about, the artist was in fact threatened by angry Christians. As for "violence" and "beheading", no, you didn't do those things, and neither did the folks complaining about the snow plows. I'm not sure why you even brought it up.
Sioux Falls South Dakota?
Really?
Some mouth breathing lefty got sand in their vagina because some kid or group of kids painted -have a nice day jeebus- or some such on a snow plow?
Sioux Fucking Falls Fucking South Dakota?
What? There wasn't anything else to do? Corn all in is it? Couldn't quite push over an outhouse or something? Tip a cow?
Sioux Falls Fucking South Dakota makes Madison look like Manhatten.
Garage: [God is] a no-show for how long? People are becoming skeptical. For good reason.
Garage, your sense of time and His may be quite different. In fact it's a near certainty that they are. God has all time that exists. You (and I) have our pathetic little allotment. And look what we do with it.
Post a Comment