Printed Letters: August 4, 2017

Council shouldn’t have taken the devil’s bait

Saint Ambrose of Milan said: “The devil’s snare does not catch you, unless you are first caught by the devil’s bait.” It is unfortunate that the City Council took the bait.

I attended Wednesday’s City Council meeting for one purpose: to safeguard my right for religious freedom. I am quite simply appalled that the City Council allowed a satanist to deliver the invocation and allowed him to invoke the name of the evil one.

Christian invocations are not allowed to invoke the name of Jesus Christ according to the council’s invocation guidelines. From my understanding, the Christian invocations honored this guideline, but like the Father of Lies does, he cannot follow guidelines and I had to listen to the evil one being hailed.

According to the council’s literature, which was verbally repeated at the beginning of the session, “the invocation is offered for the use and benefit of the City Council.” One purpose of the invocation is to “encourage recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in our society.” What conceivable part of Satan is worthy of appreciation in our society? People have the right to worship what they want to, but lines do have to be drawn. There are plenty of forums for divergent beliefs, but not at a council meeting that makes decisions for the safety and well-being of the town’s residents. Satan is not interested in either and, in fact, wants nothing but destruction, death, and chaos.

I can appreciate the council’s desire to be open to a variety of viewpoints and beliefs. But if these beliefs are in opposition to the council’s own declarations, then why would they approve of such? Moreover, why would the mayor remain standing throughout the invocation? I question where this city is going and to whom it is claiming allegiance. If someone has misdirected beliefs, is it our responsibility to support and condone those beliefs? The battle between Jesus and Satan ended on Calvary, and Jesus Christ was the victor over sin, death, and Satan. This is the truth that needs to be proclaimed, not what was stated about Satan in the guise of being an invocation.

Wake up City Council and align yourselves to the truth, not to the lies; do not take the bait again.

Grand Junction

Grand Valley’s roads follow a logical and simple pattern

In a recent “You Said It” a person complained about the nomenclature of our streets and roads in the Grand Valley.

First, I would like to say that the road nomenclature of the valley is an extremely logical method of finding your way around the valley. This very logical and simple designation is based on an early survey of the valley by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The east and west designations are based on a one-mile grid starting at the west state line; 27 Road is 27 miles east of the state line. The between numbers are also based on a one-mile grid, such as 27&1/4 Road, 1/2, 7/8 and so on. This is true of all numbered roads running in a north-south direction

The opposite street designations, such as D Road and so on, are based on a survey base line running east and west starting at A and running though K Road. These roads are also one mile apart, with the same interior nominators, (i.e. D&1/2 Road etc.)

Simply put, all numbered roads run north and south. All lettered roads run east and west on one-mile increments. The questionable locations mentioned in the “You Said It ” can easily be found knowing these facts.

The only place I know with a simpler system is Salt Lake City where all the streets are arrayed on a survey from the corner of Temple Square, also on a one-mile grid.

Grand Junction

Council’s religious invocations long violated the Constitution

In his letter about having to tolerate “unsavory” selections for invocations, former City Councilman Gregg Palmer failed to mention that council’s religious invocations had long violated the U.S. Constitution by the time Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers brought it to the city’s attention in 2008. The city attorney agreed council had violated the law for decades by hosting almost exclusively Christian prayers at their meetings and compelling the audience to remain standing and pray in the name of “Jesus Christ.”

U.S. law mandates that government remain strictly neutral in matters of religion. The city attorney explained this to council, but council wanted to keep things as they were, so they crafted the current invocation policy that lets them squeak by with keeping prayers to “Jesus Christ” on the docket, as long as they tolerate people of religions they like less giving an invocation every now and then.

Mr. Palmer also failed to mention the Ten Commandments tablet on City Hall grounds violated the Constitution as well. After citizens pointed that out to council, council turned down a free way to remedy the problem by giving the tablet to the church across the street, which offered to take it and display it prominently. Instead, council spent $64,000 of taxpayer money to do an end run around the Constitution by putting up the “Cornerstones plaza” in front of City Hall.

City Council needs to obey U.S. law and reclaim its gravitas with a moment of silence.

Board member and founder, Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers
Grand Junction


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Page 1 of 1

Ms. Schnieder, you have written a letter based on your beliefs. Has it ever occurred to you that it is only one of many world views and, although you are a true-believer that somehow we should give special consideration to Christian dogma. Others are deeply offended by that perspective. You are free to live in your own little bubble if you choose to but not to try to impose it on others. It is that way in the constitution and GJ is not free to ignore it. Nor any current or former office holders. Your views are not universal and not appropriate as a guidance ideology for government. In fact it is illegal, per the US constitution.

Ms. Schneider understands neither religion nor what is meant by its free exercise.  Perhaps the lady would care to tell us how her right to practice her religion has been compromised.  Perhaps it is not personal free exercise of her religion that she is concerned with, but rather her demand that she be allowed to practice it upon others that is being threatened and which she is adamant in preserving.  It is nothing more than the “Lord I am more worthy” type of thinking - a sense of superiority she acquired somewhere along the way.

If the lady undertook a study of what religion actually is, and what roles it had played in the history of humanity, she would not be so zealous in her own religion, but keep it where it belong, personal.  She would recognize the truth in what one priest once preached from the pulpit, that most present were there for the wrong reason, not worshiping “god” because they believed “god” was “god”, but to appear virtuous and ask for more (for themselves).  It is doubtful, that Ms. Schneider (like any other religious zealot) can do that.

One of the most interesting things to note about such individual is that their real objective is control, influence and eventual domination over others. That is really a materialistic objective, and has absolutely nothing to do with any “god(s)” or “deity(ies)”, no matter what label(s) one may attach to it (them).

Perhaps Ms. Scheider, as well as many others, would do better to pay heed to where they are and what are their obligations in the here and now, which are human and humanitarian concerns, rather than please some god(s) (which may or not exist) way out there.  In other words, they need to come to the recognition that they (just like everyone else) are just human beings instead of deluding themselves into believing that they are more than that.

A historian once observed that such thing that seemingly cannot be passed on from one generation to another.

To continue my truncated post, about what one historian observed it is that there is one thing that seemingly cannot be passed on from one generation to another, is the recognition and admission that one is but a human being.

Mr. Borgen, you have written a comment based on your beliefs——-
So what?

The difference is that Mr. Borgen’s beliefs are consistent with the law.

Since when are people are not allowed to have an opinion that disagrees with the law?

I didn’t say that, now did I.

The fact remains that the law supports Mr. Borgen’s position, and does not support Ms. Schneider’s position. Mr. Borgen was pointing that fact out. He did not say she could not hold that opinion. I did not say she could not hold that position. You asked a question, and I answered it.

Clear now?

Moving the goalposts again. Typical.

What?  I’m sorry you do not understand the rhetorical question, but thinking adults do.

So now you’re claiming that it was a rhetorical question. That’s moving the goalposts.

Give it up, Meyers. You’ve proved that you can look up something on Wikipedia but what you found means exactly nothing in the context of df a discussion of a pure legal question. Where is the “rhetorical” question?  Not only is it moving the goalposts but it is irrelevant. Your role as a conservative troll is nothing but verbiage meaning nothing. Do you have the details to ever discuss anything rationally or is it a role to just make all conservatives appear unable to hold a rational conversation for information sake rather than snarky irrelevant comments?

It’ll be a cold day in hell when I ask either Iles or Borgen for advise on a legal question….Just to make things perfectly clear to a couple people who are clueless.

I feel the same way about accepting vague and useless criticism from someone who cannot specify what he thinks I’m clueless about. Your opinion is irrelevant, Mr. Meyers. If you can’t specify what you think we’re wrong about, then your opinion is all it shall remain.

Page 1 of 1

Search More Jobs

734 S. Seventh St.
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-242-5050; M-F 8:00 - 5:00
Subscribe to print edition
eTear Sheets/ePayments

© 2017 Grand Junction Media, Inc.
By using this site you agree to the Visitor Agreement and the Privacy Policy