Lord Larehip

A city in Michigan has become the subject of a lawsuit after refusing to allow an atheist to display a "reason station" at its city hall atrium.

Three groups filed the lawsuit on behalf of Douglas Marshall against the city of Warren and its mayor Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.

"When the government opens a forum for private speech, it must treat viewpoints equally, and it is strictly forbidden from favoring religious expression over non-religious speech," read the lawsuit's introductory statement.

"In this case, the government has opened a forum in which religious speech is allowed, but plaintiff's atheist speech is prohibited. This is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."

Marshall is represented by American United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil liberties Union, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

James R. Fouts, mayor of Warren, told The Christian Post that he considers the lawsuit the act of "an isolated group attempting to disparage traditional religious beliefs in a public forum."

Fouts said that any religion "can put a display" in the city hall space, noting that a Ramadan display presently stands there.

"However, this group is a non-religion and I don't know what display they're going to put up unless they are attempting to disparage our prayer station, which I cannot tolerate," said Fouts.

"I will not allow either a racial hate group to go up, a religious hate group to go up, or a group that disparages a particular ethnicity to go up on the city hall atrium."

Atheists File Lawsuit Against Michigan City Over Rejection of 'Reason Station'

Fouts has already chalked up a victory when Marshall filed a suit against displaying the Nativity scene at Christmas at the City Hall. The court said it was permissible. I'm not sure why. Marshall should win this one as it is clearly discriminatory.

Fouts equating atheists with a "racial hate group" is a bit of a stretch and not likely to hold water in a court of law. Nor does his argument that atheism is not a religion and therefore has no place at religious display area pass the smell test. Suppose instead the area was set aside for political discourse so people of all political stripes may come and set up a display and debate but anarchists are not welcome because anarchism is not a political philosophy. Or suppose it was an art exhibit but dadaist works were not allowed because dadaism is anti-art. Regardless of what dadaism is, it is inherently bound up in the artistic sphere just anarchism is inherently bound up in the political sphere. So, then, is atheism inherently bound up in the religious sphere. A discussion that excludes it is a sham.

The argument is not that the religious displays should not be there (although they shouldn't) but rather people who don't subscribe to a religious viewpoint should also be allowed to set up a display as a counterpoint. Fouts dishonestly turns into this: since atheism not a religion, it is not relevant to religious discussion. I repeat, any religious discussion that deliberately excludes atheism is a half-assed sham. I see nothing wrong with the atheist request. It is perfectly reasonable. If one group can do it then ALL groups can do it. Once you can exclude one, you can make a case to exclude any other.

What is Fouts really afraid of? That the atheists are going to start a riot? Come now. There was a group of atheists that used to hand out literature from a street corner in Royal Oak every few Saturdays (although I have not seen them in a couple of years). People either walked by without wanting to talk or they would debate. Never did I see anyone get violent. I never even saw anyone walk away mad. The whole thing was done in a civil manner and provided some of the best public conversation I've ever witnessed.

Imagine that--people publicly debating religious philosophy, ethics, ontology, epistemology, semantics, legal vs. moral, man's place in the universe, the Hereafter, etc. I used to just sit on a bench there and just listen--rarely participating but just listening to people digging into their own minds, experiences and knowledge trying to present their case or disprove another's.

Once a deeply religious man argued with one of the atheists for about an hour. When he finally realized he needed to get going, they shook hands and the man thanked him for what he said was the most intelligent and challenging conversation he'd had in many years. "I need to do this more often, it really clears out the cobwebs," he said. "I don't do this enough." I heard that in Ancient Greece such public debates were a kind of sport and leisure that people regularly engaged in. It was considered pleasurable.

The fact that Fouts does not want this type of thing going on in City Hall speaks volumes about what a typical politician he is. Or maybe he argued with someone online. Well, I hope we all know that people generally behave online in ways they wouldn't dare in public. Or does Fouts believe that atheists are so intolerant that they automatically attack anyone for having a religion? By my own experience, this is complete rubbish. Every atheist knows that most everybody around him has some type of religious belief and he couldn't care less. My bass instructor, for example, is a very good friend. He is also a DEVOUT Polish Catholic. Do I care? No. I've even accompanied him to see the huge Polish Catholic churches in Detroit. Do I lecture him on how bad his religion is? No. Nor has he ever hassled me. I mean, we're all different for f-ucksake--get over it.

What concerns an atheist, though, is when the State--whether municipal, city, state or federal--breaches the wall of separation. And atheists should not be the only ones against it. Every American ought to be against it. What Fouts is doing is un-American. Then again, in this day and age, maybe un-American is better. Maybe what Fouts is doing is, unfortunately these days, all too American.

Carpe Mortem

Not much into politics because **** changes constantly, plus tldr.

But I gotta ask dude, you from Michigan? I thought I was the only murder mitten member here!

__________________