Posted on 03/02/2005 7:26:38 PM PST by NormsRevenge
DENVER (AP) - A judge ruled Wednesday that a town can hold a recall election to decide whether to oust a trustee for remaining seated during Pledge of Allegiance at Town Board meetings.
U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham ruled that citizens have a right to disagree with Estes Park Trustee David Habecker and that recall organizers did nothing wrong when they gathered more than 200 signatures supporting the effort. The judge withdrew a temporary injunction that had blocked a recall election that had been scheduled for Feb. 15. The injunction was issued after the trustee filed a lawsuit to stop the election.
Habecker, an agnostic who has served 12 years as a trustee in the popular tourist town 60 miles outside Denver, claimed the phrase "under God" ran contrary to his religious beliefs and said recall efforts violated his right to freedom of religion.
"Mr. Habecker has certain rights," Nottingham said. "But citizens have the right to disagree with him, and they have the right to petition to recall him."
The Town Board will meet Tuesday and most likely decide when to hold a recall election, said town attorney Steven Dawes.
The judge said Habecker could still pursue his lawsuit against the town and recall organizers if he is voted out of office.
"I thought I was going to have my day in court. I needed to explain my position, why the people of Estes Park are not entitled to vote on my First Amendment rights," said Habecker, who was not allowed to testify during the short hearing.
The board began reciting the pledge in May, when Trustee Lori Jeffrey-Clark suggested it would show respect for the country during wartime.
Habecker became uncomfortable after several meetings and decided to remain seated. He has said he is patriotic and doesn't oppose the pledge's meaning. However, he said the phrase "under God" violates his religious beliefs and is at odds with the separation of church and state.
Habecker sounds like a real jerk.
On the contrary, they certainly have the right to decide who will REPRESENT them. He can stay home and not say "under God" all he wants.
That's correct...He's trying to complicate something that is so simple...
He’s not just an agnostic, he’s an uninformed fool who actually believes the left’s definition of the First Amendment [you can say or do anything we agree with without having to take any responsibility for your action]. They are voting on his privilege to be their elected representative. That’s their right. When he’s voted out as a trustee, he can still attend Town Board meetings as an uninformed agnostic citizen and remain seated during the Pledge, fully exercising his First Amendment rights. He can campaign against those who recite the pledge. How many more First Amendment rights does he want?
He’s not just an agnostic, he’s an uninformed fool who actually believes the left’s definition of the First Amendment [you can say or do anything we agree with without having to take any responsibility for your action]. They are voting on his privilege to be their elected representative. That’s their right. When he’s voted out as a trustee, he can still attend Town Board meetings as an uninformed agnostic citizen and remain seated during the Pledge, fully exercising his First Amendment rights. He can campaign against those who recite the pledge. How many more First Amendment rights does he want?
Habecker says, "In America, we were never to be subjected to a religious test for public office, but this does just that." Despite the torrents of outraged residents, he adds, "Most people, I think, will say they are not a big fan of my politics, but are tolerant enough that they will vote to keep me." I hope the town council is not such a tony group that only the worshiping are allowed.
http://tinyurl.com/6szr4
To the Town of Estes Park:
Wrong! "Under God" signifies the intent expressed in the Declaration of Independence that men are created with equal rights such as life and liberty. The DoI invoked that right as the sole authority for breaking with Britain, forming a new government and writing a Constitution of our own. The Founders wrote our Constitution around that very premise, the premise that those basic rights were inherent in every individual human being, regardless of religious belief or any other aspect of human life beyond the personal possession/expression/existence of life itself.
The phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is nothing more than a tip-of-the-hat to that premise, upon which everything from the War of Independence to our final victory and establishment of a democratic republican Constitution, and thus this nation, owes its existence.
Habecker must be a bonehead if he can't see that "under God" is the basis of this nation, in the sense that this nation recognizes as its very reason for being, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are sacrosanct human rights beyond the bestowal or retraction by government. Government which by its nature is merely bodies of men in authority. Authority that was intentionally limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. He is too arrogant to realize (or simply admit) that the premise embodied in the phrase "under God" (the sanctity of individual life and liberty) is not religious. It is a premise that is in fact quite secular as it goes beyond the interpretations of any religion and speaks directly to the universal condition of the human desire of every individual to seek freedom in mind and body. The freedom and liberty to experience life to its fullest in the way each man's conscience leads him or her.
It would probably be a truism to say that all religions speak to that condition, each in its own way, but no religion can claim to "own" that condition of human experience. The phrase is very spiritual, completely so in fact, and is religious only in the origin of its referential poetry. But it is in no way religious in content or in context. In content it is an authentic colloquial metaphor for the premise I've been speaking of in perfect keeping with the Christian heritage of the Founders. That is an appropriate affirmation towards those men who established our nation and authored our individual protections from government in the Bill of Rights. If the quarrel is with any spiritual connotation whatsoever in the Pledge then there is a quarrel with the premise this nation was founded upon. Unless you redefine the word spiritual it cannot be separated from the concepts of sanctity of life or the right to follow one's conscience.
The context is simple enough, a pledge of allegiance to Flag, Country and Constitution, and Habecker seems either oblivious to the context or he rejects the premise. Or he could just be ignorant of the use of metaphor in prose. Perhaps he just likes to clown around. Whether he is ignorant of the basis of Independence and Constitution or he is coyly hostile to it is of no importance to the voter. In either case he presents a threat to the life and liberty of the rest of us. In either case he is unfit to hold any office of trust under our Flag. A man can't well serve a principle he doesn't understand and he won't serve a principle he is hostile to even if he loudly invokes it for his own benefit. If he's just clowning around you'll have to decide for yourself if you want to pay him a salary to do it.
TigersEye - resident of Estes Park - 1982-2002
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.