Wisconsin atheist group demands Wyoming change 'unconstitutional' city logo featuring church

[rug]

The city seal of Wyoming, Mich., which features a church, a factory, a house and a golf green. An atheist group in Wisconsin says the city's inclusion of the church in the logo is unconstitutional.

Published: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 3:24 PM
Updated: Tuesday, July 24, 2012, 4:13 PM
By Garret Ellison | [e-mail]

WYOMING, MI — Despite receiving a strongly-worded letter from an out-of-state attorney, Wyoming city officials are in no hurry to erase the city logo from municipal vehicles or city business cards just because it features a small outline of a church.

“We’ve got bigger fish to fry than this,” said Wyoming City Manager Curtis Holt. “It’s not a front-burner issue for me. We’ve not had one citizen complaint about our logo.”

On Friday, Wyoming officials received a faxed letter from attorneys representing the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a Madison, Wis.-based atheist and agnostic group that promotes a strict separation between church and state.

The group has taken issue with Wyoming’s logo, adopted around 1959 when the city incorporated, which features the silhouette of a church adorned with a cross in the lower right quadrant. The other quadrants contain a house, a factory and a golf course.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/07/wisconsin_atheist_group_demand.html

This is an outrage.

[demosincebirth]

1. It'll be like pissing in the wind.

[rug]

2. That's why they faxed a letter rather than filing a lawsuit.

[demosincebirth]

3. there I go assuming again before I read the whole article.

[Goblinmonger]

11. FFRF doesn't go out of the gate filing lawsuits.

They generally contact the governmental body first to try and work things out. And to get visibility. They are generally pretty reasonable and sane about when they actually file suit.

[rug]

12. No, they go out of the gate faxing sternly worded letters.

Sometimes they file. Always they get publicity.

[Goblinmonger]

13. Seems like a legitimate strategy. n/t

[rug]

14. It's a great publicity strategy.

Can't say it's the most effective for achieving its stated goal.

[Goblinmonger]

15. They should just shut up about it?

I think they are doing what they intend to do quite well. When I am in the position to donate to a charity, they are at the top of the list.

[rug]

16. Who said that? And about what?

I'm sure they'll need your money soon for fax paper. There must be thousands of logos out there that must be addressed.

[Goblinmonger]

17. Yeah, that pesky First Amendment. Why would anyone want to defend it?

Do you have the same level of respect for the ACLU?

[rug]

18. Sending a fax because of a logo does not make one a First Amendment Defender.

There is no comparison between FFRF and the ACLU.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. There's a town named Wyoming in Michigan?

And a Wisconsin group is demanding that the town of Wyoming in Michigan (not Wyoming) change their logo? Oy, my head hurts.

[MineralMan]

5. There's a Wyoming in Minnesota, too.

I can drive to Wyoming in about 45 minutes. Can't think of a single reason to do that, though.

My theory is that Wyoming is plotting to take over the United States. I have a lot of strange theories.

[longship]

7. West Michigan -- the buckle on the nation's Bible Bra

According to Reasonable Doubts podcast and radio show.

BTW, this is my favorite religion podcast. Always geeky and steeped in counter-apologetics and Biblical learning. Hosted by three or four former Christians who grew up steeped in Bible education -- all now professed atheists.

Witty, fast moving, and well produced. Comes out about twice a month.

The whole archive is available for download free for nothing. Most are gem quality.

My favorites are the Bible series: the two part Examining the four witnesses (about the gospels); the two part Disunity of the Bible, the second of which features an interview with the incomparable Robert M. Price (another podcaster, known as the Bible Geek.

I owe both podcasts so much in my religion education.

[rug]

10. There's a Wyoming, PA about 70 miles west of me.

But then, there's also an Indiana, PA and a California, PA.

[dimbear]

6. Instead of the cross, which makes minority religions uncomfortable, go for a more generic symbol.

Best bet: a collection plate.

[rug]

8. Except the only complaint about being unconfortable came from a business in Wyoming, MI.

Granted, corparations are people too.

[cleanhippie]

24. Except that its a christian cross on the seal of a city.

Everything else is irrelevant.

[rug]

25. And?

[cleanhippie]

28. And what?

[rug]

31. And

what is your point?

You're wrong on the prima facie unconstitutionality of the logo. Beyond that, I see nothing in your post.

[cleanhippie]

34. Meh.

Its wrong. Period.

[rug]

35. I agree it's wrong, but not necessarily unlawful.

[cleanhippie]

39. Fair enough.

I appreciate both your personal and legal interpretations. Sometimes I am unable to tell which POV you are coming from. This helps. Thank you. Sincerely.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

9. A collection plate wouldn't show up very well

Depending on the angle, it would show up a a line or perhaps a UFO. They'd be better off with a dollar sign on top of the building. No one would mistake what that means.

[trotsky]

19. "We’ve not had one citizen complaint about our logo."

Is this a surprise? Who would want to step forward and complain given the attitudes of "good Christians" like yourself toward people who don't like holes in the wall between church and state?

Fortunately the issue is not whether someone complained (though FFRF doesn't actively go looking for this stuff, people bring it to them), but whether it is constitutional.

Why do so many Christians have to turn to the power of the state to reinforce their beliefs?

[rug]

26. I imagine someone with the courage of his or her convictions.

Perhaps a "good atheist" like yourself.

[Goblinmonger]

32. An interesting point.

When trotsky and I met for pizza (I'm sure you read about that while you were going through the A/A forum), we did talk for a while how both of us are in positions where we can't (and don't) feel comfortable being "out" with our atheism contrary to what you and others on DU might think. I don't know that I would have the guts to make a complaint like that. It would not go well with my career.

[rug]

33. No, I didn't read about you and trotsky getting pizza.

I've been busy.

[trotsky]

43. We can't all be as brave...

as someone who provides free legal advice.

[rug]

46. Or as someone who hurls broadsides agains religion from the anonymity of his keyboard.

I hope you enjoyed your pizza.

[trotsky]

47. As compared to broadsides against atheism?

It was delicious.

[Goblinmonger]

48. It was delicious!

I'm still impressed by the vegetarian sausage.

[rug]

51. I don't think anyone in that category is complaining about the Seal.

[trotsky]

52. No, they choose to complain about worse things.

Like the horror of people pointing out the abuses of the church supported with their own time, money, and membership.

Go ahead rug, get your last snappy word in, clearly you've got nothing else left once again. Better luck next time.

[rug]

54. Done in complete anonymity, of course.

There may be, what was your word, consequences, if you actually spoke an honest opinion openly.

Snappy enough?

[cbayer]

20. Personally, I find the golf course more offensive.

Anyone can choose to go or not go to a church, but not everyone can golf.

Talk about a point of privilege.

[Goblinmonger]

22. The phrase "grasping at straws" doesn't even come close

to describing this post.

It is a good example that those with privilege will go to any lengths to protect it.

It is a CHRISTIAN CROSS on a the seal of a CITY. You really don't see a problem with that?

[cleanhippie]

23. You display your privilege by being so flippant about such a blatantly unconstitional issue.

The number (or lack) of complaints means nothing.

The origin of the complaint means nothing.

The length of time the city has had that seal means nothing.

The personal feelings of the city officials or residents means nothing.

Its a christian cross on a city seal. It is unconstitutional.

The fact that you try to dismiss this by comparing it to a golf course shows your privileged POV.

Common ground on this issue would be the universal recognition that this symbol (or ANY religious symbol) on a city seal is just plain wrong. Are you still trying to find common ground?

[cleanhippie]

21. It is a christian cross. On the seal of a city in the United States. It is unconstitutional. Period.

The number (or lack) of complaints means nothing.

The origin of the complaint means nothing.

The length of time the city has had that seal means nothing.

The personal feelings of the city officials or residents means nothing.

Its a christian cross on a city seal. It is unconstitutional.


What more needs to be said?

[rug]

27. That does not make it unconstituional per se.

Period.

Fortunately there are courts that can prevent injuries from knee jerking.

[cleanhippie]

30. Sigh.

I can only imagine how the world must look through christian privilege glasses. Too bad you seem unable to see without them.

(for the record, I have been working on removing my "white privilege" glasses. My oh my, how different the world really is.)

[rug]

36. You should be careful about casting "privilege" statements against total strangers.

You don't really know at all.

[cleanhippie]

40. I cast my statements based on the words posted over the time I have been here.

When in a limited get-to-know-the-real-person environment, perhaps the words one chooses and stance one takes should be taken into more serious consideration before posting them. One cannot blame others for forming an opinion based on that, when that is all they have to base it on. (and yes, I need to take my own advice)

[Goblinmonger]

37. Good thing you gave up being a constitutional attorney

Robinson vs City of Edmond

At issue in this case is the official seal of the City of Edmond, Oklahoma. ? The circular seal contains four quadrants, of which one depicts a steam engine and oil derrick, one depicts the Old North Tower,2 one depicts a covered wagon with the number 1889,3 and the last quadrant depicts a Christian cross.

...

Plaintiffs are non-Christians who live or work in Edmond. ? Mr. Feldman is a Jew who lives in Edmond, Mr. Miller is a member of the Unitarian Congregation who lives and is self-employed in Edmond, Mr. Battles is a member of the Unitarian Congregation who lives in Edmond, and Dr. Robinson is the minister of the Channing Unitarian Church in Edmond. ? They brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §?1983, claiming that the inclusion of the Christian cross in the City seal violated the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as certain provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution. ? They named as defendants the City, its mayor, and its City Council members. ? The mayor and City Council members were sued in both their official and individual capacities. ? Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages.

...

The images on the seal are not just neutral snapshots of the community; ?they are charged with endorsement․ ?[R]egardless of its origins, the [city] seal does promote the selected images it depicts. ? To any observer, the [city] seal expresses the City's approval of those four pictures of City life-its flora, its schools, its industry and commercial life, and its Christianity.

...

In sum, we hold that under applicable Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court authority, the Edmond City seal violates the Establishment Clause. ? The district court erred in concluding otherwise. ? We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.12

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1287489.html

[rug]

41. When did I say I was a constitutional attorney?

In any event:

While we acknowledge that each case must turn on its own facts, and that the particular context and setting of a particular governmental seal or logo is relevant to its fate when challenged under the Establishment Clause, we decline defendants' invitation to carefully and minutely distinguish the Edmond seal from the Bernalillo County seal based upon the particular dimensions of the crosses in the two seals or the secular or non-secular nature of other elements of the seal.

This was the seal:



Compare and contrast.

[trotsky]

44. There's a cross on that one and a cross on the one being challenged now.

Whaddya know.

You should read more in that decision to see why that's relevant.

[rug]

45. And there's a bigger one on the Seal of Oklahoma City.

Whaddya know.

I did read the decision. You should read it again.

[trotsky]

53. Nice try, but no.

Better luck next time. Time for your "snappy" last word!

[CBGLuthier]

29. Edmond Oklahoma got sued over a cross on their "city crest" and was forced to remove it a decade ago

Of course that was the Clinton days when sanity ruled the land.

[rug]

38. Thanks for that. I'll see if I can find the case.

These things often turn on facts and (dare I say?) context.

On edit: Never mind, I see goblinmonger found it.

[TrogL]

42. I don't golf. That had better come off too.

[madrchsod]

49. is`t it up to the citizens of that community to decide what they want ?

why is it a concern of some group from another city or state?

some people should keep their noses out of other people`s business.

[Goblinmonger]

50. Yeah, so what if some restaurant in the south doesn't want to serve blacks.

That's their business. (for the impaired)

You have heard of the Constitution, right? Check out the First Amendment.