Tag Cloud
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
OPINION: Separation Of Church and State in Sacramento?
by Isaac Gonzalez, published on August 24, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Storyline: OPINION
Community Tags
sacramento government religion the call
Loading images
While driving downtown last week I was surprised to see what appeared to be an advertisement for a religious event on a light pole. A banner stated in large bold lettering: “ONLY ONE HOPE JESUS” and referenced an upcoming event and a website. Advertisements on light poles are not uncommon, and you can find them in many places downtown. Normally they advertise for museums, concerts, and special events. I cannot recall ever seeing one promoting any sort of religious dogma, let alone one that promoted itself to be the “only hope”, inferring all other faiths (or lack thereof) to be incorrect. But what bothered me more than message was the medium: This appeared to be a legitimately erected banner on a city-owned pole. I couldn’t believe that the City of Sacramento would be so short-sighted as to place religious advertisements on public property, but low and behold, I found at least three more banners later that day. Wanting answers, I dialed 311 for the city operator to find out who was in charge of ads on city light poles.
I had a hunch that the convention center or some organization like it had a role in the light pole adverts, and asked the 311 operator if that was the case. The operator conferred with his supervisor, but still couldn’t confirm what department was responsible for the banner. He suggested that I start with the city’s department of transportation, which maintains and services the light poles. I called the department of transportation for the city, and they informed me that adverts were under the jurisdiction of The Sacramento Downtown Partnership. I called their front office on Friday, August 20th, and was told the person in charge of adverts would be out until the following Tuesday. I decided that I would call back then and try to get to the bottom of this.
Over the course of the weekend I found myself wondering why I was letting this bother me and whether or not I should drop the issue. After some soul searching I decided this is an important issue. I believe we should not allow the city to advertise ANY religion over another. I believe in the ideals of our constitution and I believe in the separation of church and state. If this advert were on a private billboard I would not have any objection to its posting. But it was not posted on a privately owned billboard; it is posted on a city-owned light pole. That pole was erected with tax payers’ dollars. It is maintained by tax payers’ dollars. It would be just as unwise to place an advert on them that read “Mohammed is the one true prophet” or “religion is the root of all evil” or “only Catholics get into heaven”. It my humble opinion, the City of Sacramento has no business choosing sides regarding religion, and it would be best for them to stay clear of any advertising that would cause one to infer that the local government prefers one mode of faith over another.
Still curious as to the banner’s origins, I decided to visit the website on the bottom of the advert. I entered www.thecall.com into my web browser and started to do a little reading. In case you weren’t aware that this is a religious website by its name alone, the biblical scripture of Ezekiel 22:30 directly on the top of the web page should leave little doubt in your mind. Further readings lead me to find out that the leader of “The Call” is a man named Lou Engle, who recently proclaimed; “What happened to California will release a spirit that is more demonic than Islam, a spirit of lawlessness and anarchy. And a sexual insanity will be unleashed into the Earth.” in reference to same-sex marriage. This same man has been mired in controversy for his support of Uganda's current Anti-Homosexuality bill, in of which calls for life imprisonment and the death penalty for gays and lesbians in Uganda. Just this last May, Engle traveled to Uganda and organized a 'The Call' Rally at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, preaching against "homosexuality, witchcraft, and corruption."
I did not have to spend a great deal of time or money to discover these questionable acts of Lou Engle. In fact, I did this all during my lunch break at work, which made me wonder: What kind of vetting process does one have to go through to place an advertisement on city property? Is any vetting done at all? The simplest of Google searches would reveal that this event and its leaders promote a radical and extremist non-secular agenda. At the very least the verbiage of the advert should have refrained from its explicitly one-side dogmatic tag-line, and in an ideal world I hope city officials would realize it’s best to stay out of religious affairs when it comes to city property. In the sprit of full disclosure I will confess that I do subscribe to the beliefs of any organized religion and voted no on prop 8. I am personally offended by the message that this group hopes to promote by its event, BUT I REPECT THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO. My only complaint is the posting of this religious advertisement on city-owned property.
I understand that this issue can be very “touchy”. It can set off deep emotions in people. I hope that I’ve successfully communicated my distain for the use of city-owned light-poles for religious advertisements, and that my point has not been lost in the ageless argument of which religion is right, or whether or not religion has a place in the world at all. I wouldn’t argue against privately posted advisements, or against the right for this group to assemble and have their event, no matter how strongly I feel against the message of their event.
As I go to press, my calls to The Sacramento Downtown Partnership have gone unreturned. I hope to hear from them soon.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
I posted a comment as to this being a necessary evil of the city owning a facility like the convention center. And then I looked at the call website again and realized this is an event in West Sac at Raley Field, not the Convention Center!
http://thecall.com/Group/Group.aspx?ID=1000049934
This is truly bizarre. It would be troublesome but understandable if city light poles were advertising an event at the city owned convention center. But for city owned light poles to advertise a religious event at Raley Field just doesn't compute. Good work Isaac. Where specifically did you see these light poles?
I'd say you successfully communicated your entire message so very clear. In fact I am so very impressed at your passion as well as gift to communicate exactly what troubled you.
I wish you Peace, love, action....in having your concerns addressed. Personally I don't advocate one religion over another. It is my opinion God is love! God is good! God is truth! I've met many people on this journey of all different religious beliefs and some with no religious beliefs. I found a common denominator and that is LOVE. I've been shun by folks who say they believe in God and by some who do not. I've been loved by folks who believe in God, some who don't believe in organized religion and loved by some without religious beliefs at all.
I believe in God. I believe in Love. Heck, I don't chose one religion over another. I think I'm put here to love. So, I choose people and I choose to love. Thank you for the article. Thank you for your love. I wish you well in your efforts. I applaud you for taking a stand when something concerns you!!!
The onus is on the church to decide if they want to inflict cheesy billboards on their house of worship and the eyeballs of others. Feel free to turn them in for violating the law AND the Lord.
What "debate about taste"? It's the SANCTUARY for God's sake!
I have called the Department of Transportation (City Department) and they claim to "own" the poles. Since they are a division of the City Government, and the poles are City property, my only issue is whether or not this is fair use of City property. That is why my story title ends in a question mark.
Religious groups are made up of American citizens, who have rights under the constitution, but those rights cannot trample on the rights of other American citizens, which is one of the reasons we have the separation of chruch and state. If the "State" endorses one religion over another, then one group's rights are being violated.
Bus benches are owned by RT, which is not a department of the City. The city does not own RT
IF the city has a policy and/or program to rent/lease advertising space on city owned light poles, can they discriminate against churches or religions from advertising events?
Seems like it could be fist amendment issue if one digs deeper, and not state sponsorship of a religion or religious event.
Also I think if I'm reading this right that RT is funded by taxes
http://www.sacrt.com/fundingpublictransit.stm
it was a fascinating read and I appreciate that you put your opinion in, but still managed to be fair and objective in your treatment of the facts. Often logic and transparency can be mixed with a fair amount of opinion and still be fair and informative.
Great job!
SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent
with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion.
A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of
his or her opinions on religious beliefs.
_____________________________________
So do you think that by allowing someone or a group of them to use city property to display their speech upon is showing a preference or is establishing an official religion?
One signage thing that has always bothered me is the faded, ripped bar band posters stapled like wallpaper on posts around the city. It looks ghetto-awful. Why don't the poster folks come back and remove their six-month old annoucements? And is it even legal to deface public property with these relics? Don't people use Tweets and Facebook to get the word out?
Mind you, I don't like it or approve of it any more than you; I just don't think there's anything that can (or should) be done so long as it's a simple business transaction open to any group.
There's no first amendment violation if one religious organization is allowed to use or purchase a state facility as long as the opportunity is open to all such organizations. The state hasn't either endorsed one religion or elevated it above others, unless it takes such business from one and refuses others.
Instead the CVB or DSP is taking the Richard Nixon / Bernie Madoff route and not answering the phone while secretly and quickly changing the offending banners.
Seems like a poorly thought out PR strategy, especially when one factors in that it's coming from the principal PR organizations for our city!
But I am not a journalist, and am more than happy to call it a cover up based on the fact that banners are suddenly being taken down almost 2 wks ahead of the event they are advertising.
If the entities that put up the banners have a different point of view, they are welcome to return your calls and explain it, or provide a response to the SacPress. In the absence of a response, it looks like a cover up. Not exactly Watergate, but a coverup just the same.
Do you really believe that if I could afford a banner that read "Religion is False, the only hope is Science" and had it placed on the same pole that there would be no issue? I think that would be a large cause of controvesty. Hasn't the Freedom From Religion Foundation had problems with it's legally place PRIVATE billboards?
I also found it very interesting to find out more about the organization "The call". More people should be aware of Lou Engle and the very dangerous, and often violent message of hatred against homosexuality he is spreading. I would like to think that if the person, or department, who allowed the banner to be posted, would have taken some time to do a little research, they may have thought twice about the potential of being inadvertently seen as a supporter of a man who spreads such radical messages in countries such Uganda, a country already torn by the violence created by hatred.
Again, I am also not against any religion, or anyone's right to hold their events. It does however become an issue for me whenever people, such as Lou Engle, are involved in spreading messages of hatred.
Thanks for the thought provoking story Isaac. It not only brought my attention to the questionable "use of a city-owned light-pole for religious advertisements", but it also informed me of the man behind "The Call" Lou Engle.
As a gay Christian who is appalled at what "The Call" appears to support, I can't get all excited about this issue. I think the key issue is that it's advertising. The fact that it is advertising on city light poles seems to me to be irrelevant.
I don't think the city should tell them they can't advertise their religious event any more than they should tell me I can't advertise gay pride.
The light poles in this instance would be more like a city owned billboard, or maybe a city owned newsletter of community events. Obviously if the city rented out billboard space to a group that puts up a sign saying Jesus is the Only Way, that could be viewed as a conflict of church and state. It is certainly not cut and dried though... since if the city provided equal billboard accces to all groups and religions then maybe its fair game.
I guess I am a bit surprised that the CVB put up these banners with a very direct religious message without thinking about it.
What is funny about all this is that the removal of the banners would seem like the perfect ACLU case. Except that the ACLU is more interested in it's narrow political agenda than actually protecting civil rights for Americans, at least if those Americans happen to be a religious group.
This is a pretty interesting saga.
For the record, Coggy, that is an unbelievably ignorant question, pretending that individuals handing out fliers on the sidewalk is the same as city crews mounting city produced signs with city equipment on city property.
Followed by an impotent swipe at the ACLU. Are you TRYING to stupify the discussion?
i will admit this: he has a very staunch view regarding homosexuality; however, he also desires for Christians to love the community rather than vilifying them. While it's arguable how effective it can be to both love the person but despise what they do [though, i believe that anyone with a "prodigal" relative can relate, though I don't think that even this is a proper analogy to the love Christians are called to show EVERY human being], I believe after listening to Engle speak and attending The Call itself that he is not hoping to incite physical violence or hate. If anything, he speaks against that [though, personally, I wish that this would be more of a major point/ highlight in The Call than previous years due to the growing discomfort and concern between the homosexual and Christian community [divided for the sake of argument-- I know not all lines are this black and white to some]].
He also DOES talk about martyrdom but not in the sense that most would take it. He means very seriously the laying down of one's life to follow Christ, no matter if that means garnering hate, physical attack, or even death-- martyrdom in the sense of many of the Catholic saints and early Christians and even Christians today. The juxtaposition of this martyrdom to the "violent warring of the spirit" is what confuses most people. And admittedly, we've all been taught to think that such language is bizarre, extreme, and likely unhinged. The proactive violence which a great deal of the media is seeking to connect this martyrdom is NOT the same violence Lou is calling Christians to; rather, and you'll hear this as a major theme in his speaking, it's for Christians to pray as if their prayer is a sword and for them to refuse spiritual defeat any longer by secular influences around them.
I'm not excusing the signs or attempting to invalidate your argument in any way; your arguments are completely valid and very well-made. In many ways, this does toe if not cross what most would term as the "church-state" line. However, I think that adding to possible offense and indignation regarding that line with misinformation is not helpful to ANY one-- it just increases hate. And after reading SEVERAL sites that do not completely check their facts or biases or draw connections that are insubstantial if one takes a serious moment to ask hard questions... I fear not what The Call can do or what our city CANNOT do but instead how much we allow our modern media to dictate what we believe to be true-- we follow it with such a blind faith (even Internet sources we research) that, regardless of religion, it's as if we're in a cult.