City municipalities and the First Amendment

Kristilove · #1 07-04-2007, 08:02 PM

What is the name of your state? Texas.

Is it lawful for a city municipality to send out mailings containing religious messages?

justalayman · #2 07-04-2007, 08:14 PM

it would depend upon what they say.

it is illegal for the government to establish a religion or prevent you from practicing the religion of your choice (or lack or religion if it applies)

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Kristilove · #3 07-06-2007, 02:18 AM

Okay... the facts are...

At the same time that N. Texas has been undergoing some flooding, drought conditions were/are still a worry. The water department sent out mailings with updates and restrictions, as well as reccomendations; i.e... no water fountains running, no yard watering, etc...

For some reason they felt it necessary to include such things as, "God has heard your prayers" and "Hallelujah! Praise God!"

I do not believe it is acceptable for a city municipality to include such things when religion in the United States is so varied. I, of course, looked to the first amendment for an answer to whether or not this was a violation of Separation of Church and State (not that I am going to raise a big stink about it, but would like to write them a letter of dissatisfaction, only if I have a leg to stand on with my "legitimate" complaint), but found nothing that I felt was solid as to this exact situation.

racer72 · #4 07-06-2007, 08:40 AM

The examples you give are clear violations of the first amendment. What do you want to do about it?

CdwJava · #5 07-06-2007, 03:26 PM

Well, it might NOT be a violation of the First Amendment. That would depend on a number of other details.

But, as Racer72 asks, "What are you going to do about it?"

I suppose you can contact the ACLU ... but unless there is money in it for them, I doubt they will get involved. Of course, if a number of people come forward claiming how they were harmed by these statements, maybe an argument can be made for damages.

It seems silly to me to make an issue out of this, but then I am generally against litigation for things like this. Ultimately, if they lose (heck, even if they win) the city will have to pay for any court action and settlement by cutting services. Great set of options!

- Carl

Kristilove · #6 07-07-2007, 10:41 AM

As I stated in my first post, I have no intention nor desire to sue them or to make a big issue of it. I do want to send them a very short letter in which I would politely explain how I believe their comments were unneccesary. I just didn't want to write it without first researching the topic (and I trust the knowledgable people who post at this forum to give me an answer as well as an opinion!)

Thank both of you very much!

Now, off to a different category with another question!!

Caveman · #7 07-07-2007, 10:44 AM

thanks for thinking.

justalayman · #8 07-07-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristilove

As I stated in my first post, I have no intention nor desire to sue them or to make a big issue of it. I do want to send them a very short letter in which I would politely explain how I believe their comments were unneccesary. I just didn't want to write it without first researching the topic (and I trust the knowledgable people who post at this forum to give me an answer as well as an opinion!)

Thank both of you very much!

Now, off to a different category with another question!!

even if it is legal, your letter, if written well, would not be out of place. Folks tell city hall what the think of them every day. That is our right. Just remember the old addage of "getting more flies with honey than vinegar"

I personally prefer dead meat. Flies love it.

Kristilove · #9 07-13-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justalayman

Just remember the old addage of "getting more flies with honey than vinegar"

I personally prefer dead meat. Flies love it.

Too funny!!

Now I am going to have to re-think the whole "nice letter thing"!

marbol · #10 09-20-2007, 10:18 PM

I'm also in North Texas. The cities kept the water restrictions (drought) in place even after the floods simply because it generated so much money for them in the form of tickets issued to people that let their water system run too long or on the wrong day, etc.

Most of the cities when they planned their annual budgets back when there was still a drought in place counted on receiving a lot of money (hundred of thousands of dollars in some cases) from the issuance of these tickets.

Thus, when the floods came and people wanted to wash their own cars, water their laws, fill their swimming pools, etc. the cities saw budget shortfalls and decided to just leave the water restriction laws on the books.

In my opinion this is simply more of the same thing: big wasteful government screwing over the little guy as long as he will take it.

Go to the next city council meeting and protest the language that was on your letter. While you are at it, you might mention that you are also oppsed to the taking of more money.

Personally, I'm more upset about the latter.