Do you also oppose secular advertising? If not, then why not? Who decides what is religious and what is not?
I am personally sick of the secular moralism and violence shoved down our throats every day. It's a religion of theft, war, deceit ...and even bad movies/nauseating song lyrics.
But let's not blind ourselves to any idolatry with a half-way stand on principle.
The issue of church-state separation isn't an issue of church and state. The issue is authority denied by our constitutional system of governed government.
Politicians are authorized to do very few things; that's what leaves us freedom. And if there's anything the USA had proven in years past, it's that freedom works better than the alternative.
Government has no authority to advertise anything. Why not leave it at that?

Being on the side of the ACLU is not something to be proud of (most of the time). They are a very one sided organization, barely coming to the defense of religion when they have a right under the Constitution that is being violated.

It's usually only when the seculars or hard core leftists are under attack. They never stick up for the second amendment for instance or how about transnationalism with cap and trade? We will no longer be sovereign.....I do not hear a peep from the ACLU about this....and that is a bigger violation of our Constitution than tax payers paying for a sign.

This is why I left the Libertarian Party....it has become a joke. They are so focused on trying to get liberals to see that "we are not like Republicans" that they sacrifice their values for votes....just like our other two parties.

Sad, very sad.

You're right in one regard Andrew. The government should not be funding speech, religion, the press, or assemblies of people. Those things are all fine when done in public using private money. When public money is involved, none of those things should be sponsored unless it is a forum that is not in any way regulated by any government official.

The "No more speech, assembly, or petition" comment is completely asinine, unless you're talking about those that are publicly funded, then that's fine to do away with them. A typical conflation found in this "debate." It's nice to see people like the author of this article who have a functional capacity for logic and theory.

You want to use public money to advertise your church bake sale, then I get to use it to advertise the local Bacchanalia. The knife cuts both ways, and most of the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth fundamentalists are not willing to share with others the same power that they so lust for themselves.

As a former military officer and reader of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other founding documents, I need to say my peace and give you some food for thought. I sent this to Pat Dixon but feel it like on any other politician’s ears; it will ring deaf on them.

Our founding documents…

Read them and count how many times “God” is written on these
“Government” documents. Separation of Church and state means you do not let the church control the state or the state control the church be it of whatever religion; it’s not the exclusion of religion from government but its control of it.

He (and possibly you for linking his article) is falling for a false atheistic approach and a deliberate misleading interpretation of the separation.

Taken from the Wikipedia for the sake of argument: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state)

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke [3], the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state. The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

This was an opinion or “concept” of one of the founding fathers, not an amendment or law. If this was to have been adopted by the continental congress, they would have put it into the amendments and they did not! They did not agree on this and neither should we accept the view of one dissenting man as fact even if it is Jefferson. He is after all a man and subject to being wrong like any other. We do not have this anywhere in the constitution and it should have never been applied to law.

I found the opinion stated here to be arbitrary -- if the local government provided small religious announcements to all faiths as a service to the community, what is the problem?

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

It DOES say that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Rather than side with the ACLU (a bad idea -- I agree with the previous commentor) and make religion taboo, why not promote the free and even exchange of religious ideas among all groups? Maybe we'd learn something from each other in the process.

And by the way, when someone prays to Jesus because they believe as a Christian, they are freely exercizing there faith, just as a Muslim prays to Allah, and a jewish person to Jehovah. No one should apologize for it.

Lastly -- Congress prays at the opening of every session. This started with our founding fathers. You wanna have an idea of what they viewed proper separation as, take that into account.

Thanks.

If churches want to use their TAX EXEMPT property to promote partisan political causes, their first step as honorable citizens is to repudiate their tax exemption. But so long as they are getting a free ride on my dime they must conform to my wishes. And their Y'Shua is on an equal standing in the eyes of the law with Baal, Krishna, Zeus and L. Ron Hubbard.

"We are killing ourselves with political correctness"

Slightly melodramatic.

"Groups that claim they get excluded and create issues always seem to have other motives"

Is the specter of political correctness an issue for which there could be other motives?

What is the real problem here?

As usual, the religion side of this issue evoked passions which, in turn, diverted everyone's attention from the simple solution alluded to by Andrewhorning in his first comment: the government should not be using taxpayer's dollars to fund advertising. For anything. Period. Especially at a time of budget constraints. If the government owns advertising space such as a billboard, they could charge a flat rate to any advertisers and use it as a source of revenue. Of course, there would still be contention over who is advertising, and potential for government censorship. An even better solution may be for the government to sell off any such asset and use those revenues to fund legitimate functions.

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. The concept of the ACLU is a good one, but, unfortunately they have proven to be very one-sided and, thereby lose credibility as a true watchdog for all American's civil liberties.

Separation of "church and state" is not the same as "religion and state".

This is an area that often gets mis-interpreted- especially looking back at the founders' meaning and intention. They didn't want a "Church of England" situation in America.

If they intended separation of "religious activity" or "faith" they would never have allowed prayer, or even sermons to be given in Capital. But no one church or organization had say over the government.

A big difference...but easily mis-interpreted.

Just one point here: The U.S. Constitution in the first amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The term respecting as defined by the OED means "To have regard or relation to, or connexion with, something" Essentially the government cannot have connection with the church, but neither can it disallow citizens to practice a religion. The idea of separation of church and state is not one intended to hurt a group, it is simply that government cannot show preference to any one religion since all must be equal under the law, an Idea prevalent with both Locke and Montesquieu whose writings strongly influenced the founding fathers. I think Andrew has a fine point that all advertising should be banned excepting of course materials that are meant to keep citizeens informed of the law.

Just one point here: The U.S. Constitution in the first amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The term respecting as defined by the OED means "To have regard or relation to, or connexion with, something" Essentially the government cannot have connection with the church, but neither can it disallow citizens to practice a religion. The idea of separation of church and state is not one intended to hurt a group, it is simply that government cannot show preference to any one religion since all must be equal under the law, an Idea prevalent with both Locke and Montesquieu whose writings strongly influenced the founding fathers. I think Andrew has a fine point that all advertising should be banned excepting of course materials that are meant to keep citizeens informed of the law.

The article doesn't state whether the ads were sold or provided for free as a PSA. If the local gov was selling advertising to the church then tax dollars weren't technically being used to promote it, and could turn a profit from it which could (theoretically) reduce taxes.

Agreed that the gov shouldn't be in the business of doing business, but that's not a 1A issue.

Kudos to Mr Dixon for his vigilance, though. And i, too, never got the whole congressional-prayer thing. i sure as heck don't want their ill-gotten booty being spent on time that should be spent on congressional affairs, not a time-out for religious activity, non-denominational or otherwise.

Madison denounced the use of prayer to open Congress.

The 1st, 13th & 14th Amendments protect against attempts to establish religion, which establishment however minor is what the Dixon is fighting against.

Nice try for the wackos claiming the Libertarians are losing credibility on religion or that religion is a "Libertarian " value.

Libertarians do also have a larger point that there should be no coercive government exactions in favor of advertisement or anything else. But as Dixon says, one battle at a time.

The fanatic "religious" have had a free ride taxing, drafting, murdering and regulating the rest of us for two centuries. Now that they're being held accountable they claim that's "secular religion" and that they're oppressed because the rest of us are normal, which they view as "obscene" in their cracked world view.

Hence the bizarre attacks on Dixon, the sort of devout person who understands "secular" law is the only protection for the sincere in the long run.

Spare us the attacks on the ACLU and liberals, which kept "Christians" from literally burning people alive for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance or not go to church rioght here in Texas in the 1940's, let alone the hanging and burning of whole neighborhods of black "non-Christians."

P.S. I'm a Protestant minister.

Just FYI, Pat Dixon posted a response to all comments here: http://www.austinpost.org/content/separation-church-and-everything-else-a-reprise

I just read all the comments here. I am starting to think most everyone here is running for "Congress". We look at the Constutition, Read it, tear it apart as adults. Lets look at it from a childs point of view, for what it is. Keep it simple. 1st amendment gives us the right to say prayer whenever and where ever we want. That also means in the government. As much as I hate to say it, even Obama has the right to pray to any God he wants when ever he wants. If we don't like him, VOTE HIM OUT!
As for parties. I love this one. If you stop and think about it, If a congressman or congresswoman is doing thier job, what does it matter what party they are in. We need to get back to the basics and start looking at the indiv! I am running for U.S. Congress. I hear this "What party are you with?" I never say until I tell them first who I am and what I stand for. I let them know, I am only 1 vote in my district. As for the U.S. Congress, They were created for 2 reasons. Over see our trade, and protect us from foreign invaders. Within reason, most of what is voted one should not be. Don't judge a person by the party! You may not agree with everything within your party, should we dislike you because of 1 issue?

I'm proud to be a Libertarian! I want everyone to know this. But I stand on my own beliefs, and I think the Libertarian's would want this. Free thinking and standing up for what WE want as a whole!

David Smith
http://www.dsmithforcongress.com

Since Mr. Dixon never stated specifically what the content of the advertising was other than it had religious content, any reference to the religious favoritism that would lead one to conclude a violation of the "establishment of religion" clause in the U.S. Constitution is necessarily speculative and argumentative to no good end.
Andrew Horning makes the point that government should not be using taxpayer money to advertise in favor of any private entity - religious or otherwise - and I support that concept, as it leads to government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. To me, that is the real issue, given the lack of specific content of the sign.
And I contend that government should neither advertise (read "lobby") with taxpayer money in favor of public policy. Here in Sarasota, FL the county government advertised heavily in favor of extending a one-cent "local option" sales tax, and the measure passed overwhelmingly. They may as well have said "give us your tax dollars so we can lobby you to give us even MORE!"
Congratulations on your second term, Pat. Keep thinking and voting to get government out of people's lives and wallets, and you'll probably get elected to a few more.
Working to Restore Liberty In Our Lifetime,
Bill Van Allen, Jr.
Sarasota, FL

Since Mr. Dixon never stated specifically what the content of the advertising was other than it had religious content, any reference to the religious favoritism that would lead one to conclude a violation of the "establishment of religion" clause in the U.S. Constitution is necessarily speculative and argumentative to no good end.
Andrew Horning makes the point that government should not be using taxpayer money to advertise in favor of any private entity - religious or otherwise - and I support that concept, as it leads to government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. To me, that is the real issue, given the lack of specific content of the sign.
And I contend that government should neither advertise (read "lobby") with taxpayer money in favor of public policy. Here in Sarasota, FL the county government advertised heavily in favor of extending a one-cent "local option" sales tax, and the measure passed overwhelmingly. They may as well have said "give us your tax dollars so we can lobby you to give us even MORE!"
Congratulations on your second term, Pat. Keep thinking and voting to get government out of people's lives and wallets, and you'll probably get elected to a few more.
Working to Restore Liberty In Our Lifetime,
Bill Van Allen, Jr.
Sarasota, FL