Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

Prayer booth at Warren city hall sparks questions

By Ed Brayton | 06.22.09 | 11:17 am

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based group that often files lawsuits against perceived violations of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, is asking questions about a “Prayer Station” set up at the Warren City Hall by a local church. The Detroit News reports:

The Freedom from Religion Foundation said resident concerns over the booth — located in the lobby of city offices and adorned with a banner that simply reads “Prayer Station” — prompted the nonprofit to file a request for copies of city policy, its rental agreement with the church and verification it is being charged to use the space. The group is also criticizing the city’s failure to disassociate itself from the religious message of the church.

“This is ridiculous. Prayer should be private,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Wisconsin-based nonprofit. “A government is supposed to be neutral when it comes to religion.”

Warren Mayor Jim Fouts said the city rents the space to any group that complies with policies and fills out the proper paperwork. The church is leasing the space free of charge, because it’s a nonprofit.

“Anybody who would be upset about this, it’s much ado about nothing,” he said. “There is no aggressiveness on the part of the prayer station. They are there for people who seek them out.”

If Mayor Fouts is correct and the city allows any non-profit group to lease the space, it’s unlikely that the courts would view this as a constitutional violation. In fact, they might well view it as a violation of the Free Speech Clause to prevent a church from leasing the space.

In a series of cases beginning with Lamb’s Chapel v Center Moriches School District, the Supreme Court has held that when a government-owned building or property is made available for use by community groups it must be open to use by religious groups as well.

It will be interesting to see what information is turned over to the foundation.

Comments

  • MarianoApologeticus

    This, again, is the work of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) that was established in a country founded on the principle of freedom of religious expression.
    Allowing or encouraging prayer on government property does not violate the Constitution. Yet, groups such as the FFRF do not seem to know the difference between the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and what Thomas Jefferson wrote about in a letter about the “separation of church and state.”
    Who understood the Constitution better: the FFRF or Thomas Jefferson who, deist or not, attended Christian church services in the Capitol Building?

    This is yet another publicity stunt by the FFRF who lives for this sort of controversy/attention.

    This post makes it pretty clear:
    http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/01/dan-b…

    • ebrayton

      MarianoApologeticus wrote:

      This, again, is the work of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) that was established in a country founded on the principle of freedom of religious expression.

      You say this as though it were some sort of contradiction. It's not. Freedom of religion requires freedom from the imposition of someone else's religion. I'm not a big fan of FFRF but this is just a silly statement.

      Allowing or encouraging prayer on government property does not violate the Constitution. Yet, groups such as the FFRF do not seem to know the difference between the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and what Thomas Jefferson wrote about in a letter about the “separation of church and state.”

      You've oversimplified the truth here. Allowing or encouraging prayer on government property can violate the constitution but it doesn't necessarily do so. If Mayor Fouts is correct and the city has a policy allowing non-profit groups to lease such space free of charge then there likely is no violation here (because they would have established a limited public forum wherein all groups must be treated the same regardless of their viewpoint). If they do not have such a policy and the city decided specifically to allow this religious group to do so, that would likely be a violation (because the city government would have chosen specifically to endorse the religious message). That's why FFRF has requested copies of the city's official policies and a copy of the lease, because such details really do matter.

      Who understood the Constitution better: the FFRF or Thomas Jefferson who, deist or not, attended Christian church services in the Capitol Building?

      There are numerous fallacies in this single sentence. First, let me say that I've seen no evidence that FFRF understands the first amendment particularly well. They have often filed frivolous lawsuits they have no chance of winning on such issues. But that doesn't make the other claims here any more valid. Jefferson was not a deist, he was a theistic rationalist. And those “Christian church services” he attended on rare occasions at the capitol building were not really church services at all, they were large social gatherings for the Washington elite. They featured lectures, which were sometimes given by ministers and sometimes were entirely secular. But mostly they were just big parties, as they were described by those who attended them.

      Lastly, the premise of this argument is false. As stated above, the law does not say that church services can never be held in government buildings. Churches all around the country lease government property to hold events, including Sunday services, and that is perfectly consistent with the establishment clause. But it's only consistent if the churches are allowed to rent such facilities on an equal basis with other non-governmental groups, not if the government specifically chooses to allow only a church to hold such services. That's when it crosses the line and becomes a government endorsement of religion.

  • Fizzmick_paChee

    Unfortunately through the lies told to support the god delusion, many people have too much emotionally invested in the concept of immortality to objectively evaluate the horribly disastrous consequences that accompany it. Nothing less than immortality could get so many people to rationalize so irrationally in the face of the overwhelming evidence we now possess against the belief in gods.

    There is tremendously more hope (gigantic to infinitesimal) for immortality through mankind than any god. For the record, I too would like pleasurable immortality. If you are near sighted try prayer or an optometrist to improve your vision. See which works better.

    I have great hope (and some FAITH, but not overly optimistic) that mankind will advance to where we can travel back in time and save people, bringing them forward to what is the then present.

    Should we acquire this ability our lives may very well be reviewed to see if we are worthy. THE EVIL AND THOSE WHO PROMOTED SUPERSTITIOUS LIES THAT GO AGAINST ALL LOGIC AND EVIDENCE, MAY NOT BE DEEMED SO.

    The safer, smarter, better choice is through reality – not specious lies.

    Good luck and happiness to all, -Fizzmick PaChee

  • Fizzmick_paChee

    Unfortunately through the lies told to support the god delusion, many people have too much emotionally invested in the concept of immortality to objectively evaluate the horribly disastrous consequences that accompany it. Nothing less than immortality could get so many people to rationalize so irrationally in the face of the overwhelming evidence we now possess against the belief in gods.

    There is tremendously more hope (gigantic to infinitesimal) for immortality through mankind than any god. For the record, I too would like pleasurable immortality. If you are near sighted try prayer or an optometrist to improve your vision. See which works better.

    I have great hope (and some FAITH, but not overly optimistic) that mankind will advance to where we can travel back in time and save people, bringing them forward to what is the then present.

    Should we acquire this ability our lives may very well be reviewed to see if we are worthy. THE EVIL AND THOSE WHO PROMOTED SUPERSTITIOUS LIES THAT GO AGAINST ALL LOGIC AND EVIDENCE, MAY NOT BE DEEMED SO.

    The safer, smarter, better choice is through reality – not specious lies.

    Good luck and happiness to all, -Fizzmick PaChee

  • Fizzmick_paChee

    Unfortunately through the lies told to support the god delusion, many people have too much emotionally invested in the concept of immortality to objectively evaluate the horribly disastrous consequences that accompany it. Nothing less than immortality could get so many people to rationalize so irrationally in the face of the overwhelming evidence we now possess against the belief in gods.

    There is tremendously more hope (gigantic to infinitesimal) for immortality through mankind than any god. For the record, I too would like pleasurable immortality. If you are near sighted try prayer or an optometrist to improve your vision. See which works better.

    I have great hope (and some FAITH, but not overly optimistic) that mankind will advance to where we can travel back in time and save people, bringing them forward to what is the then present.

    Should we acquire this ability our lives may very well be reviewed to see if we are worthy. THE EVIL AND THOSE WHO PROMOTED SUPERSTITIOUS LIES THAT GO AGAINST ALL LOGIC AND EVIDENCE, MAY NOT BE DEEMED SO.

    The safer, smarter, better choice is through reality – not specious lies.

    Good luck and happiness to all, -Fizzmick PaChee

Categories & Tags: Separation Of Church And State| | |