Front Page  »  

Atheists sue Pismo Beach over city chaplain

November 5, 2013

pismoIn connection with Atheists United San Luis Obispo, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit organization that promotes separation of church and state, sued Pismo Beach last week over its use of a city chaplain. [Tribune]

The lawsuit, filed in San Luis Obispo Superior Court Friday, alleges that Rev. Paul E. Jones, the city’s chaplain, is illegally promoting Christianity during invocations before council meetings. The suit calls for the elimination of both the chaplain position and the practice of praying before meetings.

“What we’re looking for is a judge to tell them to knock it off,” Atheists United San Luis Obispo spokesman David Leidner told the Tribune.

In 2003, the council passed a policy prohibiting sectarian invocations. The council adopted the policy to comply with an appellate ruling that municipal prayer sessions cannot include sectarian deities, such as Jesus Christ.

City Attorney David Fleishman says that Jones, who is affiliated with the Pentecostal Four Square Church, has complied with the policy. But, the suit alleges that Jones has made several Christian references, including “Our Father in Heaven,” “Our Eternal God” and “God, Our Father.”

It also alleges that between Jan. 1, 2008 and Oct. 15, 2013, Christian clergymen delivered 123 of the 126 prayers. Jones delivered 112 of the invocations.

Jones’s Christian references suggest to non-Christians that they are “outsiders at council meetings, are unrepresented in their government and are not full citizens,” the suit states.

 


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


95 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This nation was founded on religious freedom, the pledge of allegiance says “one nation under God”, our money has printed on it “In God We Trust”. If this is a new and surprising concept for you perhaps you should move to another country.


This nation was founded on the belief in God, allowing people to worship whoever or whatever they may and you want to prevent that? Pick another country to live in because this one is “ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.”


The chaplain has just as much of a right to pray as you do to complain about it. Do you think the Chaplain would sue you for NOT believing in God…oh wait a minute, he believes in the concept taught by Christ of ‘doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.’


Maybe you should try that concept out and spend your time doing “good” and worthwhile” things like loving your neighbor rather than suing him…just a thought.


0

This nation was founded on religious freedom,

——————–

Not religious freedom in government. Only private religiou freedom. The relevant point here is that this country was founded on keeping religion out of government. It says it plainly and clearly in the constitution. And if you don’t believe it, one of the first treaties of our new government was the treaty of Tripoli. Read it and become educated.


“The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.


The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United States.


As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”


the pledge of allegiance says “one nation under God”, our money has printed on it “In God We Trust”.

—————————–

Tthe pledge of allegience wasn’t even written until 1892–over 100 years after the founding of the country. It has nothing to do with the founding of this country. It has a lot to do with Christians relentless attempt to convert this country into a religious nation–much like the Muslims continually try to do in their countries.


“The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth’s Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.”


The major problem here is education. Christians rely on the education they get from their Churches which consist basically of misinformation to keep them brainwashed in the religion.


0

Sounds like you have been listening to that revisionist A—–e David Barton.


FIRST. “One Nation under god” was not included in the originsl Pledge, but

only added in the 1950’s

SECOND. “In god we trust was adopted as the U.S. Motto at about the same time

as the Pledge was changed, and it only appeared on our money late durung the Civil War.

THIRD. Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Washington, and Adams were not christian but if

anything; deistic.

FOURTH. The Treaty with Tripoli ratified in the early 1790’s by the entire Senate categorically

stated “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion….”

FIFTH. Atheists and Humanists have been demonstrating for centuries tha they don’t

need an imaginary friend in the sky to be kind, compassionate, ethical, and kind.


0

sing the third stanza and weep.


0

I am so sorry


0

Apologizing for the missing stanza or Canadian?


Sung to the tune of a popular English drinking song, “To Anacreon in Heaven“(1782)


Ye Sons of ANACREON, then, join Hand in Hand;

Preserve Unanimity, Friendship, and Love!

‘Tis your’s to support what’s so happily plann’d;

You’ve the Sanction of Gods, and the FIAT of JOVE.

While thus we agree

Our Toast let it be.

May our Club flourish happy, united and free!

And long may the Sons of ANACREON intwine

The Myrtle of VENUS with BACCHUS’S Vine.


0

myrtle of venus is my new hash house harrier name


0

How about suggesting that these concerned Atheists deposit all of their printed documents that state ” In God We Trust ” into the hands of needy children.


0

Jorge,


The problem with your assertion, is that which God is actually to be trusted in a nation of many contradicting gods with their respective religions? They all can’t be correct when they blatantly contradict each other, so which one is picked to be trusted? Allah? Yahweh? Jehovah? Jesus? Mithra? Zeus? Or?


Which one, or do you have another unmentioned God for a preference that you can verify as being trustworthy?


0

You missed the point, the money that atheists are glad to spend and fund their battle has “In God We Trust” printed on it.


0

we should fix that


0

Humanism, a religion in every aspect, is what these atheists practise and preach. So, while calling out for those who are only trying to practise their own form of religion to stop they continue to “preach” their own… “Poor and Pathetic” is far to kind; more like a bunch of control freaks in my mind.


Just sayin’….


0

Secularism is our largest, government-mandated religion. We do not bow down to kiss the Pope’s ring, but I’ll be damned if we’re not constantly bombarded with requirements to bow down and kiss the rainbow ring… or the green ring…


Lots of ring-kissing going on in the “secular” segment, that’s for sure.


0

I thought the government was supposed to be “of, by, and for the people”. Are all the people in the City of PB Christians? No, they are not. Is the City using tax dollars from all PB residents, including non-Christians, to pay Rev. Jones to promote Christianity? Apparently, yes. Is the City giving equal consideration to all other faiths? No, it is not. Are there any other cities in the County attempting to establish a religious preference for their residents? No, as far as I’m aware, there are not. I predict that thanks to the ongoing, abysmal stupidity of the PB City government, the taxpayers of PB will soon be footing the bill for yet another large legal settlement. These shenanigans are only going to stop if the citizens of PB use their voting power to get rid of the cretins who are currently in office.


0

Comment’s suggesting death for some people were deleted.


Further death suggestions will result in a loss of account for those involved.


0

That was not very Christian of them to suggest that!


0

I’ve read the constitution over and over again and I can not find where it mandates a separation of church and state. The constitutional violation would occur if the law suit is successful in removing the city Chaplin from his position. It would require the city/state to pass a law eliminating a city Chaplin. That is what the founders did not want to happen. So they inserted this into the Bill of Rights…”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.


0

You may want to look into the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution); however, even if you look closely and read/re-read the First Amendment, you will not find any mention of “separation of church and state” in there.


(one more time, for review):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


0

I think we are in agreement r0y…you said what I said in less words…lol


0

I’ve read the constitution over and over again and I can not find where it mandates a separation of church and state.

———————-

Education is your answer. The constitution is not a document–like your bible–that you just get to read and decide what it means as it suits your purpose. Your personal lay opinions of what the constitution says are simply irrelevant. What matters is how the United State Supreme Court has intepreted the Constitution. And this body, that is the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution, says your interpretation is dead wrong.


Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)


Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.


Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)


Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.


Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)


Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) – Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.


Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)


State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state’s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.


Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)


Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.


Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)


Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.


Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)


State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether “pure” moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.


Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)


Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of “creation science” in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.


Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)


Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.


Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)


Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.


0

The supreme court gets things wrong. Here are a few examples where they reversed their original decision. A few cases have been reversed due to new evidence being presented, changes to federal laws, or a convincing argument made against the first decision.


Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969) Previous decision vacated and case remanded to the US District Court for the District of Colorado for disposition.


Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, 315 US 769 (1942) Originally affirmed a judgment sustaining an injunction, reversed on reconsideration.


Brenham v. German American Bank, 144 US 549 (1892) Previous decision vacated and case remanded to lower court.


In my opinion the U.S. Constitution is or should be the catalyst that all judgments are made from. We have had many justices throughout this nations history turn a scant eye towards the Constitution when deciding cases before them. It does not mean their decisions were correct or constitutional. If we take the constitution literally we would all be better off. Words mean things…we don’t have to like it but they do.


0

Dred-Scott


0

Pismo Beach should have never boasted on the amount of bed tax that they are now receiving. By advertising their deep pockets all of the ambulance chasing attorneys along with all of the kooks that have their own agendas will be gettin in line to sue Pismo Beach. I guess this is becoming the American way since we are being told not To Trust in God any longer.


0

These poor pathetic atheists are at it again and as soon as they get their way they suddenly lose all interest in attending Mayberry’s council meetings.


Can’t we get the same injunction against these people as was handed to the wheelchair bound man who went crazy on the restaurants over the ADA issue?


0

gosh, i woke up this morning and wondered “what can i get ticked off about today?”


0
1 2 3