Visions of Shadow and Light

I think Brent's point is that if you work for the government, you should represent the citizens of your district (whatever that boundary entails). He may be incorrect in stating that he's violating the 1st Amendment, but I do believe he's forgetting about the whole separation of church-n-state. At the very least, he's alientating a percentage of those he represents that do not follow Christianity.

I also think you're skippin over the crux of his post, which is the reaction most citizens would have if a government representative would ever dare state they followed a religion other than Christianity or (gasp!) not follow one at all. For some reason that seems to be a very taboo thing to do these days 8-).

> but that is still not an valid argument
> for curtailing this man’s freedom of speech.

I agree with you. We should not curtail any man, or woman's, freedom of speech. However, Andrew Souza becomes a spokesman for the city of Fresno, a government entity, when he is acting in his official capacity as City Manager. The city government of Fresno, in the person of Andrew Souza, does *not* enjoy the same freedom of speech rights that the private individual Andrew Souza does.

This is a common mistake that people make with regards to the First Amendment.

> This is my country and I’ll exercise the rights
> that are my deity-given due thank you very much.

You cannot exercise your *private* rights in a *public* capacity.

Are you having trouble understanding this?

Exercise your freedom of speech on your own time, but not while you are being paid by the taxpayer, or while you are speaking for our government.

> Anyone who moves against a person proclaiming
> their belief (or lack thereof) in good faith is
> simply un-American.

"Moves against"? I stated my opinion that what Souza did was unconstitutional. I believe that it is, for my stated reasons. This is "un-American"? This is "moving against"?

Please.

Anyone who would call a complete stranger "un-American" due to a difference of opinion - is misguided. Heh.

Care to change your opinion about the "un-American" thing?

> To protect your own rights you must protect the
> rights of everyone else.

I agree. Which is why Andrew Souza should be roundly criticized for his thoughtless and careless breaking of the establishment clause.

We are in this America thing together. Souza doesn't seem to get that. He seems to think that Christians are a little "more equal" than everyone else.

Spiritual matters should generally be private things. I don't think it is in good taste to advertize your spirituality or beliefs. For Christians in particular, the Bible tells them not to pray in the streets, but to go home and pray in a closed room in their house. I think more Christians should pay attention to that particular directive.

That said, it's not unusual for spiritual matters to be sources of public comfort and inspiration. It's been that way since the very beginning of this country. Many of our national buildings have religious imagery...not because the government was "establishing" religion, but because the religious imagry was what best conveyed the sense of what they were trying to accomplish.

Some of that religious imagry is pagan, and some is Christian, and most is Greek.

Some of it was used and invoked by people who were athiest and agnostic because they found it to be inspirational all the same and reflective of the higher callings of mankind. They found it to be the best way of talking about what was best in mankind.

Eliminating religion and spirituality from public life is a fools errend. Insisting on not allowing the government to dictate religion, nor for religion to dictate government is an indispensible pillar of our society.

The two should not be confused.

I use the phrase “un-American” as much to point out that the hard-core Evangelical viewpoint on this is as dangerous as anything. Note that many Christians reading your or my posts would be outraged at the thought that someone might indicate their success flowed from their belief in a non-Christian deity. Hopefully you’ll forgive me a bit of hyperbole on that point, but since many Evangelicals have their nationalistic and religious perspectives hopelessly intertwined I think a little shock value is not a bad thing.

But the real point of my post is that based on the quote in your post, Mr. Souza isn’t in the wrong. He didn’t state that you or I or anyone else should believe in his god, or even be thankful to that god. He simply stated that he is personally thankful. A personal expression of faith is protected – regardless of whether he is working for the government or not. His statement did not attempt to establish religion or impose it on the people or the government.

It is absurd to expect that anyone will become a soulless automaton the instant they are elected or hired into government. People are who and what they are. This guy is either actually religious or uses it for political gain or both. Regardless, that is who and what he is.

Though perhaps the Establishment clause could be interpreted such that no one elected or employed in government service could ever utter any spiritual, religious or philosophical (humanist, etc.) statements at any point, that would merely cover the real issue. Those people would still be just as religious/spiritual as if they weren’t forcibly silenced.

The real question isn’t whether they verbally express their beliefs, but rather whether they can set them aside when appropriate. Can they make decisions and set policy in a way that is best for all the citizens they serve? This is an entirely different question than verbal expression, and is far more important. Expression of belief through policy is where there is real danger to society.

In fact, it is probably far preferable to allow people to express their beliefs verbally so you know in what ways to monitor them for aberrant policy decisions. The alternative is for them to remain silent in public, while expressing their beliefs quietly and in ways that may be subtle and hard to detect.