OJ readers! Help us Huntington Beach patriots decide how best to attack the latest ridiculous proposal coming from a couple of nuts on our City Council: to display a monument in Council Chambers reading “In God We Trust.” (Yeah, I know.) This “idea” will be discussed at our next council meeting Monday April 7, and any of you who care about the Constitution and the 
separation of church and state should know: You don’t have to be an HB resident to come and speak!
I’m sure there will be no shortage of speakers on the possible unconstitutionality, and the intentions of our Founding Fathers regarding separation of church and state. I’m thinking myself of taking the following tack:
Huntington Beach is home to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindi, Wiccans, a heck of a lot of agnostics, and a hell of a lot of atheists. They’re all US citizens and they all deserve equal treatment by their city council.
Well, sure, the strident Cathy Green and the goofball Joe Carchio will respond, but the maj
ority of us are (or pretend to be) Christians or Jews, and the rest of HB citizens can just ignore this monument if it makes them uncomfortable.
And I’ll say, well, most of us HB residents are also white, certainly all the councilmembers are. So why don’t we just put up a big sign saying “White People Are Special!” All our Mexican, Asian and black friends can just ignore the sign if they come to a council meeting; it doesn’t say anything bad about them and they don’t have to look at it if they don’t want to.
The point is, either sign would make a lot of people feel excluded, which is the opposite of what we should be doing during this low point in our democracy. And this here white Christian is against it!
************************************************************************************
But then I thought, maybe I’m being too cynical, maybe this slogan, “In God We Trust,” which is most closely associated with MONEY, really does express the deep sincere conviction of what is most important to most councilmembers, in HB and elsewhere in the OC. (After all, the proposal comes at the same time as another controversial one, which would raise the campaign donation limit to $3000.) So this thinking led some of us to try and lend a hand by designing appropriate Monuments to Mammon which we will unveil on the OJ over the coming week! Stay tuned…
(The Worship of Mammon, Evelyn de Morgan)
Exactly!
What ever happened to the concept of “E Pluribus Unum”? Does One from Many only apply if we all just comply and promptly begin chanting, “One of us … One of us …”? Isn’t this SUPPOSED to be a representative democracy? As an atheist, can I stop paying my taxes now, since I am certainly not being represented?
Hey Vern: why did you take down the original post?
This one is half the length and you deleted all references to Debbie Cook? Your original post claimed the “in God We Trust” item to be a GOP “wedge” issue designed to embarrass Debbie.
Mich! “One of us… one of us…” That’s Todd Browning’s FREAKS, isn’t it? Cool reference!
I’m a freak too. Don’t forget about me. 😉
SMS
Matt,
FYI, you are the editor of Red-Faced County. Not the Orange Juice. If Vern wants to edit his post, good for him.
BTW, I wonder what God thinks of Mike Carona, Mike Schroeder, Van Tran and the rest of your spiteful, perverted Mexican-hating Reeps?
FYI, you are the editor of Red-Faced County. Not the Orange Juice. If Vern wants to edit his post, good for him.
Hey, just asking a question, Art.
Vern’s post was up for a day. There were half-a-dozen comments, and it was all about how this was a GOP plot to get Debbie Cook. It was even titled “Huntington Beach: In GOP We Trust, Part 1”
I didn’t question Vern’s right to take the post down, re-write it and re-post a day later. I was just curious why.
I’m a little curious about this too, but I don’t think there’s cause to make a big deal out of it.
SMS
Mr. Jubal,
Perhaps they took it down because her peeps realized it was hurting, not helping her cause. Ya think?
Quick you are, Jubal, you snake! I realized I had no idea what the Mayor’s position would be on this silly issue. And even though you Republicans have a long history of cynically using religion to divide people, I realized I might have just been making an unwarranted assumption this time around (since the same stoopid thing is happening in other cities.) We shall see.
Hey, how much do you guys owe Debbie’s lawyers for legal bills by now? You sure you don’t want to appeal that ruling, just one more go-round? No?
Hey, how much do you guys owe Debbie’s lawyers for legal bills by now?,
What do you mean “you guys,” kemosabe?
He means the arrogant Reeps who keep using religion as a wedge issue right before they diddle little boys (that’s for you Mark Foley).
Even Eliot Spitzer, who was publicly against prostitution but chose to become a hypocrite, didn’t try to use the bible as justification for his position.
Religion needs to stay the hell out of government, pun intended.
SMS
Even Eliot Spitzer, who was publicly against prostitution but chose to become a hypocrite, didn’t try to use the bible as justification for his position.
Sarah, perhaps you could enlighten us with the identity of the Republican politicians who used the Bible as justification for “diddling little boys”?
Religion needs to stay the hell out of government, pun intended.
I suppose we’ll have to re-write the Declaration of Independence to accommodate your aggressive secularism, then. If only you could time-travel back to 1776 to share your opinion with Thomas Jefferson.
I think you misread me Jubal-
The point is the hypocrisy of so many politicians who use the bible to justify their so-called religious zeal, then violate its tenets.
Clearly, they don’t actually hold the same beliefs as their religious-right constituents, they’re just trying to give them prayer in school and such to get re-elected.
The Declaration of Independence isn’t the guiding document of our nation, the Constitution is and it says that we have the freedom of religion.
That doesn’t mean that Christians have the freedom to proselytize to the point that they take over our country and its values, it means that all religions should respected, even atheism.
There is NO religion on Earth, with the exception of Islam, that proselytizes more than Christianity. Too many of its followers actually don’t have faith at all, they’re convinced that their beliefs are indisputable truth.
THAT is the problem.
SMS
The beautiful phrase “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” on which you attempt to hang your theocratic hat, does not support it, as Mr. Jefferson and the other HBO superstars went on to painstakingly create a CONSTITUTION (which you may have heard of?) that carefully keeps all religion out of the workings of government. (And vice versa.)
Oh and there will be religious leaders testifying to that as well come Monday the 9th (assuming this absurdity stays on the agenda.)
PS: I think I see the confusion now. I didn’t mean that Spitzer used the bible to justify his actions, I was pointing out that he didn’t use it to justify his position AGAINST prostitution. Sorry, I should have been more clear. My bad.
SMS
Sarah, never apologize to Jubal. He will twist your words and purposely distort everything you say, it’s been his MO for a long time. Think Jungle Book, think big snake. You are Mowgli.
Sorry, I’ll try to be more like Balloo from now on. Remember when they brought him back for that cartoon “Talespin?” He was such a kick-ass pilot, flying circles around people. Oh wait, I guess I’m already like him in a way. 😉
SMS
The beautiful phrase “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,”
Vern, you might try reading the Declaration again sometime. There’s also:
…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them
and…
…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence…
Sorry, I should have been more clear. My bad.
No problem. Nobody’s perfect.
He will twist your words and purposely distort everything you say…
You mean, Vern, like you calling me a “theocrat” because I pointed out the religious references in the Declaration?
Clearly, they don’t actually hold the same beliefs as their religious-right constituents, they’re just trying to give them prayer in school and such to get re-elected.
I think that is true of some of them. Others are just sinners, or slaves to some vice or habit that’s mastered them.
The Declaration of Independence isn’t the guiding document of our nation, the Constitution is and it says that we have the freedom of religion.
It’s the document that created the United States, but you’re right: the Constitution is our fundamental law.
It guarantees our right to free exercise of religion, and prohibits Congress from establishing churches. It doesn’t divorce religion from government.
…painstakingly create a CONSTITUTION (which you may have heard of?) that carefully keeps all religion out of the workings of government. (And vice versa.)
No it doesn’t, Vern. You’re confusing the Constitution with Jefferson’s “wall of separation” letter.
Jubal-
The fact that the Framers were Christians is irrelevant. The religious statements referenced in the Declaration do not specify *which* ‘divine providence’ they were referring to.
Sure, we can *assume* they were talking about the Christian god, but considering they were also openly secular in their governmental theories, it really just refers to individuals’ personal beliefs, not god per se.
In fact the word god doesn’t appear in your quotes from the Declaration, and certainly neither do any references to Christianity. Instead they were careful to use the words ‘divine’ and ‘creator.’
That being said, it of course could be argued that, ‘In God We Trust’ shouldn’t alienate anyone but atheists, but what about those like myself who are polytheistic, humanistic (man created god), and/or believe in the ‘sacred feminine’ instead of an ‘almighty father?’
You said: “It guarantees our right to free exercise of religion, and prohibits Congress from establishing churches. It doesn’t divorce religion from government.”
Are you saying that Congress setting up churches is not OK, but churches setting up in Congress is? That’s what’s been happening and so I’m afraid your view is just a bit short-sighted.
Not to mention that again, with Christians’ inherent responsibility to ‘spread the word of god,’ they are the only religion attempting to so completely set up our country as an officially Christian state.
Tell me again how Christians are better than Muslims in that regard?
SMS
Correction: One line did refer to ‘nature’s god,’ but still, that term is also non-specific.
SMS
The fact that the Framers were Christians is irrelevant. The religious statements referenced in the Declaration do not specify *which* ‘divine providence’ they were referring to.
Sarah, I haven’t mentioned Christianity, or any specific church, for that matter.
You can try to argue away the Declaration’s references to God, but they are there and they are central to the document because the Declaration clearly states that the unalienable rights to which the signers are pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor come from God. That is not a secular belief.
The Founding Fathers subsequently prohibited Congress from establishing a church because they thought it wrong for people to be taxed for the support of a church to which they didn’t belong. The purpose was not to divorce the any reference or relation to religion from government. That’s retroactive modern secularist wishful thinking.
Are you saying that Congress setting up churches is not OK, but churches setting up in Congress is?
That’s clever word play, but it doesn’t really mean anything, Sarah.
Not to mention that again, with Christians’ inherent responsibility to ‘spread the word of god,’ they are the only religion attempting to so completely set up our country as an officially Christian state.
You honestly believe all Christians are trying to turn the United States into an “officially Christian state”? And how exactly are “we” all plotting to accomplish that? I guess I haven’t been invited to those meetings.
Maybe that kind of over-generalized, simplistic caricaturization sets heads to nodding at secular humanist get-togethers, but in the wider world nobody buys it because it’s hokum.
Tell me again how Christians are better than Muslims in that regard?
Leaving aside your fictional Christian conspiracy to take over the federal government — maybe we can start with the absence of Christian suicide bombers deliberately blowing up innocent people or kidnapping them and cutting their heads off; Christian terrorists hijacking planes, blowing up skyscrapers or attacking American military installation; Christian terrorists waging war against the United States.
A few flaws in your logic Jubal. First of all, of course the Framers referenced god and of course they were Christians. Atheism was practically unheard of at the time, especially with the country consisting primarily of western Europeans, but even still our forefathers were wise enough to write religious freedom into the Constitution.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten about the Inquisitions and crusades. This also disputes your theory that Christianity is less violent in its ‘conversion techniques.’
Christian ‘terrorists’ have waged war against Muslims which is why they hate us. Granted they too want to create their own religious states, but if they’re in the middle east, they’re not here.
And tell me, how is bombing the hell out of Iraq without a UN blessing when the real terrorists are in Afghanistan not also terrorism? I know we lost 4,000 American troops, but how many Iraqis have died? Over a million. 🙁
If I subscribe to ‘modern secularist wishful thinking,’ then explain to me why the Founders decided to forgo naming an official religion when they had the chance.
Without that explanation, I still feel my ‘clever wordplay’ has merit.
And finally, you’re right. There is no Christian conspiracy since conspiracies rely on secrecy to come to fruition. The religious right has had no problem publicly proclaiming that we are supposedly a ‘Christian nation,’ and despite the will of the majority, continues to adamantly push its agenda with its admittedly clear roots in faith instead of fact, and I’ll repeat that far too many Christians find those two things to be one and the same. Again, like many Muslims.
This isn’t just modern history, it’s anthropological fact.
SMS
Ah, the Crusades and the Inquisition. The two trusty, rusty arrows in the quiver of every anti-Christian polemicist.
Let us speak of logic, then. Your premise is that Christians in America are trying to take over the government and impose a Christian State on America.
You then imply that those American Christians are no better than Muslims who want to establish a Muslim state (with Shari’a law and all the rest.)
I rebut that, so you then ping-pong from American Christians and reach back into the Middle Ages to change the subject to the hackneyed “it’s all our fault because of the Crusades” trope.
Just because a fact is old doesn’t make it any less relevant. I’m not trying to equate Christian extremism with Muslim extremism in this day and age. I’m trying to point out that it was Christians of old that used similar tactics which led to their dominance in western Europe which of course birthed the USA.
Do you know about the Masons? Do you understand their role in early America? Do you they were derived from the Knights Templar? Christianity has been sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong for 2000 years! How is that not legitimate if it still retains its dominance to this day?
SMS
Sarah, thanks for being truthful about your feelings on christianity and I agree..unsaved christians”and their misguided followers often caused more harms than good in historical context.
However, there were plenty of true followers of Jesus Christ (not for money,power,fame)had emerged and gave up their precious lives to serve others..poor, sick and weak while preaching the gospel of the truth and the hope from the Bible.
I believe these are the true “christians” and we should be all proud of them. Our God is about “GIFT” of “ETERNAL LIFE” and you get to choose it freely without pressure from anyone.
The Bible also tells us for those entering heaven by accepting Jesus Christ as your only Savior, you are to be REUNITED with your LOVED ONES.
Again, you make the final decision!
For me it was a wonderful deal… a lot better coverage than my auto insurance policy can provide.
I am happy and excited about having “In God We Trust” displayed everywhere because it gives me a true “PEACE” and a good message for our youth.
#30
I agree there are many compassionate Christians. I lived with a famaily of them while in Foster care. They didn’t care that I was Pagan and they didn’t try to convert me. They were genuinely spiritually happy people who believed what they did and respected everyone.
I don’t dispute the lessons to be learned in the bible, and truth be told, I have been very open about my admiration for Jesus even among Pagan crowds. However, I don’t believe he is, or that there ever will be, a messiah or savior. We are saved or damned by our own deeds.
So OK, approximately 98% of the population believes in one god or another, so we need to have signs for each religion.
Personally, I’m a Pagan humanist. I’d like my sign to say ‘In yourself do trust.’ Perhaps I’ll make this recommendation if I decide to go to this ridiculous meeting.
SMS
#30, #31 I am a none believer and I don’t have either opinions regards to religion issues.
I simply follow our social rules and traditions and I believe we are living under the “majority rule society” meaning that will from more than 50% of the population makes final decisions.
This is how meetings work and our election process is all about.
When I traveled to Arab nations, the sign/symbol of Muhamad was everywhere and in South East Asia, it was Buddah.
If the majority of residents from Huntington Beach area believe in God, we should let them display their christian motto “In God We Trust” in the public locations within the city limits. I think it’s fair and square deal.
#32, we have the complex representative democracy that we have partly because the founders of our great nation were concerned about the rights of minorities being trampled on by the majority.
I find it especially objectionable to have religious imagery in a temple of democracy such as council chambers which should make the extra effort to be open to everybody. You can find all the religious iconography you want anywhere else, from church to homes to the street.
But you know what’s good? The majority WILL prevail, through our representatives on city council, and if we make our case well — and “we” includes many Christians who find this proposal un-American — the majority will defeat it.
OH AND 32, do you really want to use those backwards theocracies as your models? We are different here.
Vern, you are very funny… When I was travelling abroad, America was referred as a christian state by all countries around the globe.
Cover your two eyes with one hand and pretend you are a blind. If you don’t agree with the democratic “majority rule” principle, you don’t belong in this state at this period of time.
You are no more than a 2 century old revolution soldier still fighting against English occupation.
If the majority of HB residents believe in God, let the majority put up a sign which best represent them. This is not a Cuba under minority rule.
Some one can’t understand the meaning of “In God We Trust”. He said “it’s most closely associated with our money.
Does he own a dictionary for children?
Oh he might not know what dictionary is……
35, you are a very inept reader. Let me repeat what I said about majority rule:
“But you know what’s good? The majority WILL prevail, through our representatives on city council, and if we make our case well — and “we” includes many Christians who find this proposal un-American — the majority will defeat it.”
Ya ding-dong.
(And I said the phrase is “most closely associated” with our money. That is also accurate.)
#35
A ‘majority’ in this case refers to those on the council. If the city has a direct vote of the people on this issue and it passes, I will respect that.
However, an unfortunate part of a representative government is that sometimes the representatives do things that their constituents oppose. That possibility must be considered here.
SMS
#36 is correct.
I think Sarah has a good heart and keen insight.
Vern or “Burn” has neither qality.
Hey Burn, I also think the majority represents the wishes of the 50% plus of the city residents
OR from the city hall meetings ………….it’s 3 or more council members out of toal 5 members
Burn, if you still can’t understand the concept of majoriy…do apply for the refund from your latest school you have completed.
Mere attendents at the meeting does not constitute nor represent the wishes of the majority of the residents.
#36/39… um… Never mind.
I see I have met my match!
Have a nice day.
“Burn”
OK, I’ll try one more time, in short sentences.
The majority of (voting) HB citizens elected the city council. (By the way there’s seven of them.)
If four of these seven vote for or against the proposal that will be a majority.
They’ll be partly representing their own feelings, partly what they think their consitutents want. That’s representative democracy.
A lot of us will be at the meeting to convince the council that a lot of their consituents do not want this measure passed. We may or may not prevail.
Does that make sense now, what I am saying? Sincerely, BURN. (Hey, I kind of like that!)
Vern, thanks for better explanations about the majority issue.
1) the council decision reflects presumed majority consideration.
2) your lobbying friends (regardless of the numbers present at the meeting) does not necesarily represent the majority views of the HB residents.
We will be still friends and may God bless mine and your family.
Thanks for your reply. You are pretty cool person!
you cool person too buddy and sorry bout my lack of heart and insight.
God bless!