Separation of Church and Everything Else: A Reprise

I just got out of church and am filled with the love of Christ.  It puts me in a great mood to read all the outrage in the comments on my last article “Separation of Church and Signs”.  This article generated over 3,000 visits, quite a few comments, and a few votes.  It seems anything that could possibly outrage Christians draws attention like flies to a pile of horse squeeze.  You can’t imagine how happy it makes me to outrage turbo-Christians.  It makes my little nipples hard.  (Gee, have I offended any sexually repressed Bible thumpers out there?)

Here are some responses for you to ponder, which will probably foment more outrage:

SEVERAL: The First Amendment excludes establishment of a religion, not a separation of church and state.

RESPONSE: I partially agree.  I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I know a few.  It seems to me that allowing any church or religion to have advertising provided by the taxpayers is not establishing a religion.  If only one church or religion was permitted and all other excluded, that would violate the establishment of religion clause.  That is why my article did not explicitly say that allowing church postings would be a violation of the first amendment.  I made reference to the inspiration of the first amendment provided by Thomas Jefferson, who wrote:

“That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;”

ANDREWHORNING: “Do you also oppose secular advertising?”

RESPONSE: Yes.  That is why I was the lone dissenting vote on a taxpayer funded sign when it was proposed.  You might want to visit www.PatDixon.org for further details.

RAGE1605: “Being on the side of the ACLU is not something to be proud of (most of the time)”

RESPONSE: The LIbertarian Party’s most recent candidate for president was Bob Barr.  Many of you have complained that Bob Barr was a bad candidate for us and have conveyed your dislike for him.  I like Bob Barr.  One of the reasons is that he will work with the ACLU no matter what political fallout may occur.  He will change his position on marijuana policy and gay marriage when he sees the light.  So go ahead and give Bob Barr and me a hard time.  I will proudly stand with the ACLU on this issue.

DJJWP: “Read them and count how many times “God” is written on these “Government” documents.”

RESPONSE: I don’t care.  George Washington is my favorite president, but he seemed to believe in the role of God as a basis for establishing our nation.  I disagree with George Washington on this matter. He was a great leader and probably our greatest president, but I think he was wrong in connecting government to a Christian God. So go ahead and tell me all the references to God in whatever government documents you want, I don’t care.  I would side with Deists like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin that connection of church and state doesn’t make it good policy.

JOHNNIEBABY: “Second - the writer is a bad Libertarian for not noting that the constitution does not make any reference to separation of church and state.”

RESPONSE: Gee, I’m a bad Libertarian huh?  I didn’t know that the Libertarian Party elected JohnnieBaby to be the Libertarian purity czar.  I’ll tell you what JohnnieBaby, when you are on city council you can show us all how good a Libertarian you are.

MRA: “Also, I agree with other commenters that the Libertarian Party is losing credibility by constantly over-emphasizing how liberal they really are, often at the expense of upholding sound Libertarian principles.”

RESPONSE: You know, I have so many people tell me that we are too far to the right, and then the turbo-Christians say we are too far to the left.  Anyone familiar with the Nolan Chart does not get confused like this.  MRA seems to think that by upholding personal liberty we (a) lose credibility and (b) lose our footing on sound Libertarian principles.  In response to (a), if we lose votes and support because we uphold our principles, so be it.  In response to (b), it is self refuting.

AUGUST_WEST: “If they intended separation of "religious activity" or "faith" they would never have allowed prayer, or even sermons to be given in Capital”

RESPONSE: Politicians existed when Congress was formed, just as they exist today.  Congress was not perfect when it was created.  Telling me that Congress had prayers in  capital, whenever it occurred, does not make it right.  

SUSAN28: “The article doesn't state whether the ads were sold or provided for free as a PSA”

RESPONSE: It seems at the moment the sentiment of council is to give the advertizing free, which of course really means that taxpayers will pay instead of the people deriving the benefit of advertizing.  I oppose this and stated so at the council meeting.

ANONYMOUS: “Your article was great, your governance in this instance poor and your outcome diminished.”

RESPONSE: I guess I can thank you for a compliment, but appear to be guilty by association.  If I haven’t already made it clear, I was the lone dissenting vote on having a taxpayer funded sign in the first place, and now that we have it I advocate for a policy that will keep us out of a lawsuit.

ANONYMOUS:  “I think you are mistaking the event name, St Mary's Catholic Church Fish Fry and Octoberfest, for a message of  "religious nature."”

RESPONSE: I agree that a church can have an event that is not of a religious nature.  However, is it a good policy to tax everyone in Lago Vista to advertize an event for a tax exempt church that financially benefits from everyone else’s taxes?  Bear in mind the draft policy suggests private businesses are not eligible to use the sign, only non-profits.

ANONYMOUS: “Right now with all the bad things that is happening to this country you can bet that God is dealing a bad hand to us. Killing babies and men playing with men and people acting as if there is no God, what do you think God should do?”

RESPONSE: Here, ladies and gentlemen, is a turbo-Christian.  Maybe its just me, but turbo-Christians seem to be easily identified by poor spelling, bad grammar, and incoherence. The God he worships decides to deal us a bad hand because of homosexuality.  So I guess his God causes earthquakes and hurricanes to kill innocent people because others are homosexual.  Tell you what, I will worship a loving God and you worship an angry God and see how it turns out, OK?

ANONYMOUS: “What factual evidence do you have to show LP candidates have no biased impact to D’s and R’s who run?”

RESPONSE: I already gave it (where it says “Research proves it”), but here it is again: http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2008/10/challenging-cw-on-libertarian-votes.html

ANONYMOUS: “Though you are certainly free to embrace that organization if you chose, I wish you would not, as a spokesman for Libertarians, suggest all of us support the ACLU.”

RESPONSE: If you can find any statement from me suggesting all Libertarians need to support the ACLU, or that a Libertarian needs to support everything the ACLU does and says, I will come to visit you and kiss you on the butt.  (Gee, have I offended the homo-phobes?).  I do not agree with the ACLU on everything and I think they go too far sometimes.  On this matter I stand with them.

Well, I could go on but this is already a long posting.  Besides, my nipples are softening.