A billboard expressing a national foundation’s dissatisfaction with Grand Junction City Council members and Mesa County commissioners praying at the beginning of their meetings has been defaced.
The billboard, which has been up on North Avenue west of 29 1/2 Road for about three weeks, read “Keep Religion OUT of Government.” Someone used black spray paint to cross out “Religion” and replaced it with a four-letter gay slur in capital letters.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison, Wis., called the defacement a hate crime.
“It’s an attack against our group and against gays,” she said. “It’s picking on two groups of minorities.”
Gaylor said she learned about the vandalism from a member of Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers late Monday and filed a report with Grand Junction police on Tuesday.
She said she’s not sure what to do with the billboard. She said the sign and the one-month lease the foundation signed each cost $500.
The billboard company offered to replace the sign for free if the foundation extended the lease for another month, but the foundation has no plans to do that at this point, Gaylor said. The sign is scheduled to come down next week.
The subject of prayer at local government meetings has been a hot topic for about the past year and a half. Both the city and county refused to discontinue invocations but made adjustments to how they pray, although the changes haven’t appeased Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers.
Gaylor said the foundation has put up more than 50 billboards in communities across the country since it began a campaign two years ago, and this is the first time a billboard has been defaced. She said a billboard in Columbus, Ohio, was stolen.
“To have such an ugly defacement is dismaying and shows the bigotry and the discrimination,” Gaylor said.
The foundation earlier this year put up a billboard on Orchard Mesa honoring Charles Darwin.
Email MIKE WIGGINS
Comments
By seathanaich
Nov 8, 2009 11:07 PM | Link to this
It's very simple.
If you are an elected official, pray on your own time.
If you are Christian, listen to the words of Jesus, and don't pray in public like a braggart.
A "non-sectarian" prayer is an endorsement of religion over non-religion, no matter how generic. That constitutes state endoresment of religion. No amount of rationalising can change this.
The bottom line is that there is no place in government for prayers of any type. You are elected to serve everyone, including the 15% of Americans whose religion is "none". Do you job. Practics your religion on your own time.
By USAtheist
Nov 5, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this
Are there no churches in Grand Junction where city council members might pray, if they feel the need, before convening themselves for official, taxpayer business? Can they not pray in their own homes? Or is it that they feel it necessary to make sure the voters know their religious beliefs? Surely this is mere pandering and not an honest expression of faith, because honest expressions of faith could be done in their own churches and homes.
By Desertman
Nov 3, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this
To David: Regarding the concept of freedom of/from religion: The 1st Amendment certainly does guarantee freedom of religion. Freedom from religion, in this sense, means freedom from any state coercion to practice or support any specific religion, or any religion in general. Sectarian prayer at public Government meetings is state coercion to practice/support religion.
By Scott
Oct 29, 2009 2:15 PM | Link to this
David,
And why was the establishment clause claim was denied? Because the chaplain had already removed all sectarian references from the prayers. In other words, the prayers were non-sectarian and were thus considered acceptable.
Quoting from the ruling: "[N]ot even the unique history of legislative prayer can justify contemporary legislative prayers that have the effect of affiliating the government with any one specific faith or belief. The legislative prayers involved in Marsh did not violate this principle because the particular chaplain had removed all references to Christ."
Non-sectarian prayers are acceptable, specific sectarian prayers are not.
By david
Oct 29, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this
Scott:
Not sure why you use Marsh v Chambers as an example, the establishment clause claim was denied and the court found that a government paid chaplain giving prayer was not a violation. I again ask you to cite a court decision stating that a government employee cannot pray a "non generic" prayer.
Just because this is how YOU interpret the 1A and the anti-establishment clause does not make it so.
By martey
Oct 29, 2009 12:41 PM | Link to this
David:
YOU SAID IT!! Thank you for pointing out the obvious, against which many pot-stirrers have been obviously turning a blind eye - that to exercise my right, your right, their right of Freedom OF Religion IS NOT NOR EVER HAS BEEN an endorsement of a singular religion or an attempt to quash anyone else's 1A rights. It is just simply an exercise of a basic right, which allows for anyone, everyone, to exercise said rights.
WHY CAN'T THEY GET THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT?! I don't know why, but I wish they would hurry up and get over it.
And BTW, David, excellent posts - loved reading them.
By Scott
Oct 29, 2009 12:17 PM | Link to this
David,
The difference lies in who is doing the praying or mentioning of religion. The Bill of Rights apples to citizens, not the government. The government, or a government representative cannot pray to a specific deity while acting in their official capacity. That is considered to be an official endorsement of that particular religion. The Supreme Court's Marsh 1983 ruling makes that pretty clear. Generic government prayer is okay, sectarian prayer is not.
No one is saying anyone cannot exercise their rights at all, only that they cannot exercise them while acting as a government representative.
By david
Oct 29, 2009 12:07 PM | Link to this
Scott:
I think I made it pretty clear what I meant, but to clarify: the BOR guarantees freedom OF religion, meaning that anyone can choose whatever religion they like or none at all. Freedom FROM religion implies that there should be no mention of religion or no public tolerance of religious ideas and talk. Freedom FROM would go against the very ideals of the BOR.
directly from the BOR:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Freedom FROM religion is directly contradictory to the 1st Amendment. You cannot prevent someone from excercising their rights simply because you don't want to hear about their beliefs. I do not believe that the council is "establishing" any religion by praying.
And I do not concede that "it has been interpreted" to mean that you cannot pray to a specific deity, I'd like to see a court decision on that. I simply do not agreee that it is a violation of the 1A as the mere act of praying to one's own deity does not "establish" anything.
Personally I think it's childish grandstanding. I don't care if they pray to Jesus, Mohammed, Zoroaster or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it's harmless either way.
By Scott
Oct 29, 2009 10:59 AM | Link to this
David,
Are you saying that freedom OF religion means that everyone should be required to believe in some religion? If not, and since you say you are an agnostic, then freedom of religion has to also mean freedom from religion.
Like it or not, the First Amendment has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot endorse one specific sect over any others, or over no religion. If a government official prays in the name of Jesus on public time, such as at an official meeting, that is in violation of the First Amendment. They can pray, but not to any specific deity. And that is all that is being asked.
By fred
Oct 29, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this
The vandalism was an act of petty stupidity. It was not a hate crime; just juvenile and pointless. We ought to direct our time and our energy to combatting actual bias, and, for things like this, shrug, repair the sign, and move on without giving the nimrods responsible the attention they crave.
[1 2 3] next
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F, except on Tuesday when it's open until 9 p.m.
Post a comment
*HTML not allowed in comments. Your e-mail address is required.