I wrote this email in response to a bit on Mike Broomhead’s radio show. I’ll post any response if I have the permission to, but I thought that it made my position about why I’m opposed to religious displays. So I figured I’d share it here:

You talked about this on your show yesterday and I figured I’d fill you in. Being both a conservative and an atheist we have a lot of common ground. Generally you are pretty reasonable about things. On this one you show that you just don’t get it. I figured I’d try to explain it.

The first thing I need to point out is atheists aren’t a group. There isn’t much we agree on. So I’m sure you will find other atheists who disagree with me. But you were specifically talking about the Freedom From Religion group. I don’t always agree with everything they do, but I do agree with the majority of it. So anyhow, I’m going to talk in general terms that I think most atheists would agree with. I’m certain you’ll find exceptions.

There are generally two reasons we find religious displays ON PUBLIC PROPERTY offensive. The part about it being on public land is the part that generally gets left out, but it is critical. We don’t care if churches put up their silly displays as long as it isn’t costing us anything.

1- The Constitution demands that government not establish any religion. To do that you have to allow all if you allow one. You guys always like to say that there aren’t problems here because no one asks. Well, that’s just not true. I’ll give you a few examples.

In 1992 the Klu Klux Klan demanded to be allowed to erect a cross in Fountain Square, the central point of downtown Cincinnati. I lived there when this was going on. They did it on the grounds that other religious displays were allowed there, and they deserved equal rights. When it went to court they won. So Cincinnati was stuck with this display: http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Flashback-1992-KKK-Puts-Cross-on-Fountain-Square/OZ6qjAiV70uwOYerR9ZXWQ.cspx

They were also stuck with spending large amounts of money on a police presence to protect it. And since it was a Constitutional violation by the city they also had to pay not only their lawyers, but the Klan’s. Now, not only did they have an offensive display to nearly everyone, the tax payers had to foot the bill for it. The problem is simple, allow one and you have to allow everything.

Atheists have been refused advertising space on city controlled properties several times where ads from churches were allowed. This is a rather obvious establishment issue. One example is the Central Arkansas Transit Authority who refused to allow the ads, even after contracting to do so. Of course this ended up costing the taxpayers more in the suit that followed than the ad was going to generate revenue. There was an injunction issued almost immediately because the Judge felt that it was clear cut and the atheists would prevail. It’s still in court, but these things always have the same outcome. The city winds up paying both sets of lawyers and losing. As a conservative you ought to be upset at the waste of tax dollars on something that a first year law student would know was a losing case. Personally I find the ads to be mostly pointless, but the refusal by a government agency of one over another is a very obvious violation of the Constitution. I could probably come up with a half dozen examples where this exact thing has been to court and the outcome is the same. Atheist groups can afford to defend it because they always win and the government is always ordered to pay the attorney fees.

– My side note here is that even private groups make the refusal. There isn’t the same legal ground to challenge that, but it does point out that religion is afraid to have counter messages. When there is a refusal the atheist group makes more of a point than when there isn’t.

2- The act of allowing any display on public ground means spending tax money on religions. At minimum there is clean up and security. But in the cases where the message is controversial the costs can be large. As a conservative I’m always offended when I see tax money wasted.

Your Texas example is a perfect case in point. You liked what the city official said about fighting it. But if they don’t allow the atheist sign too, there is ample case law on the side of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (which is way bigger than just Wisconsin, they are the second biggest group). The city will lose, they will have to put up the sign (or not allow any displays) and they will end up paying the attorney fees for both sides and the cost of guarding the sign. It is a waste of tax dollars, plain and simple. It’s not even a case that the courts will find controversial. The guy talked big, but the reality is he was being a dumbass.

There are ample cases of it with the schools too. They claim they are short on money, but at times waste millions of dollars on defending what everyone knows they are going to lose. It doesn’t make sense. The school boards do it just to make political points, when it has no chance of going anywhere in most cases.

Warren H
The Godless Conservative

http://godlessconservative.com

Note: I’ll publish this on my blog, let me know if any response can be posted as well.