LB - Felice Soldwedel Unit20 728x90

Home | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Galleries | Kudos | Obituaries | Real Estate Search | Subscriber Services | Contact Us
Camp Verde Bugle | Camp Verde, Arizona

home : latest news : latest news August 23, 2016


7/9/2009 3:22:00 PM
Camp Verde cross supporters march on town hall
VVN/Steve Ayers
About 70 members of local churches showed up to oppose the Bread of Life's decision to remove a cross from town property, and to hear the advice of Town Attorney Bill Sims.
VVN/Steve Ayers
About 70 members of local churches showed up to oppose the Bread of Life's decision to remove a cross from town property, and to hear the advice of Town Attorney Bill Sims.
Camp Verde resident Charlotte Salsman was one of several speakers at Wednesday's session of the Town Council, voicing their frustrations.
Camp Verde resident Charlotte Salsman was one of several speakers at Wednesday's session of the Town Council, voicing their frustrations.

Steve Ayers
Staff Reporter


CAMP VERDE - A crowd of about 70 residents, most of them members of local churches, showed up at Wednesday's Town Council meeting to voice their opposition to the removal of a Christian cross that once hung in the Community Center gym.

The evening's agenda had originally called for an executive session in which the council would receive legal advice from their attorney in private.

However, it was the unanimous decision of the council to have attorney Bill Sims' advice heard in public.

Seated in the very venue in which the cross once hung, the audience listened as Sims gave them a brief lesson in history, constitutional law, state law and case law, as they applies to the establishment clause in the first amendment.

"We are here tonight because of our founding fathers,' Sims said at the beginning of his presentation, as news cameras from Phoenix television station KTVK watched. "As the drafters of the constitution, they were fearful of persecution from both the church and the king."

Sims went on to tell the audience that the courts have wrestled with the question for more than two centuries and have tried to strike a balance that protects the minority of non-Christian citizens, permits the free exercise of religion and establishes governmental neutrality.

In reference to the cross in question, Sims said, "There is a way to strike a balance. The courts have said you must cover it or remove it," when the gym is not being used by the Bread of Life.

Following Sims' presentation, members of the audience had their chance to express their frustrations.

Those frustrations ran the gamut from "If they don't like it they don't have to come here," to "cover it, but don't take it down," to "one person shouldn't be able to come here and tell us what to do."

As the agenda item was only for advice from the attorney, no action was taken.

There will be two action items on the July 15 agenda, both added at the request of council member Norma Garrison, in reference to the cross issue.

The first will be a review of the actions taken by Town Manger Mike Scannell related to the removal of the cross. The second item will be a discussion and possible action to decide what to do next.



Taylor Waste
Related Stories:
• Letter: Court rulings on Establishment Clause
• Letter: Constitution or judicial tyranny?
• Editorial: Cross controversy boils down to being understanding and respectful
• My Turn: First Amendment: The Gospel must be free
• Letter: It is time to obey the law
• Letter: The Cross and the minnow
• Letter: Have some grace for those who protect rights
• Letter: Cross complaint from a coward
• Letter: Editorial a valuable, courageous service
• Letter: Don't fold up
• Camp Verde cross controversy still grows
• Cross at crux of Camp Verde controversy


    Most Viewed     Recently Commented
•   Former mayor Bob Burnside passes away Sunday at 70 (1331 views)

•   Regret rises to redemption through son (576 views)

•   Man identified from Camp Verde house fire (513 views)

•   Accident involving YCSO deputy closes SR 260 Friday night in Camp Verde (442 views)

•   Local author unites community with new children's book about adventures of Camp Verdeans (434 views)



Reader Comments

Posted: Thursday, September 17, 2009
Article comment by: 4crynLoud

FreeThinker is NOT as free as he/she THINKS! The ONLY reson we are free enough to express ourselves as we do, as he/she does, is BECAUSE of Christians! Whocame up with this whole idea that started, founded and birthed this GREAT nation! The majority still believe in God, thereforfe PUBLIC LAND belongs to God believing people, who should be free to express those beliefs on PUBLIC LAND!!!

Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Article comment by: Not Ignorant

The cross is offensive to some, but who is considering that aspect? The comments coming back at the meeting were, "Too bad!" Once again in CV, a SMALL group is forcing their opinion, regardless of the actual law. When people can continue to make ignorant statements like, "One person can't come here and tell us what to do!" -- then CV gets and deserves the bad press and comments from the rest of the Verde residents. Sometimes I am embarrassed to read our newspapers and see what our residents will say at a public meeting. This cross issue is ridiculous. Take your org to a church or other non-govt owned building. THAT'S the solution.

Posted: Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Article comment by: No name provided

Jesus did warn His children to be prepared for the worst such as this:State vs Church.Its not flesh against flesh but spirits of good and evil. "Greater is He that's in me than he that's in the world".I personally feel that no matter who wins Jesus still lives.

Posted: Monday, July 13, 2009
Article comment by: Paul

Wendy,

Thanks for the background and history lesson. After reading it I am more convinced than before that the cross being put there by someone not in government doesn't mean the government is supporting it. As I asked before - if allowing the cross means the Town supports Christianity does removing it mean they support atheism?

Posted: Saturday, July 11, 2009
Article comment by: The Pope

Who's town is it, yours or mine? Is the town not open to everyone? Camp Verde is on American soil and should be able to obey United States law. Why does the town pay attorneys to educate the grown men and women of Camp Verde? Are they all high school dropouts or is your school system producing a high number of corn fed idiots and back country morons. Here's an idea. Have your soup kitchen at your house or your church and stop bothering people. God Bless You All.

Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009
Article comment by: Wendy Banks

Here is the law for those that are ignorant of the Constitution. Or plain ignorant.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

Financial assistance
The Supreme Court first considered the question of financial assistance to religious organizations in Bradfield v. Roberts (1899). The federal government had funded a hospital operated by a Roman Catholic institution. In that case, the Court ruled that the funding was to a secular organization—the hospital—and was therefore permissible.

In the twentieth century, the Supreme Court more closely scrutinized government activity involving religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

The New Jersey law was upheld, for it applied "to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief."

The Jefferson quotation cited in Black's opinion is from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, that there should be "a wall of separation between church and state." Critics of Black's reasoning (most notably, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist) have argued that the majority of states did have "official" churches at the time of the First Amendment's adoption and that James Madison, not Jefferson, was the principal drafter. However, Madison himself often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh), "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches).

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that government may not "excessively entangle" with religion. The case involved two state laws: one permitting the state to "purchase" services in secular fields from religious schools, and the other permitting the state to pay a percentage of the salaries of private school teachers, including teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court found that the government was "excessively entangled" with religion, and invalidated the statutes in question. The excessive entanglement test, together with the secular purpose and primary effect tests thereafter became known as the Lemon test, which judges have often used to test the constitutionality of a statute on establishment clause grounds.

The Supreme Court decided Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist and Sloan v. Lemon in 1973. In both cases, states—New York and Pennsylvania—had enacted laws whereby public tax revenues would be paid to low-income parents so as to permit them to send students to private schools. It was held that in both cases, the state unconstitutionally provided aid to religious organizations. The ruling was partially reversed in Mueller v. Allen (1983). There, the Court upheld a Minnesota statute permitting the use of tax revenues to reimburse parents of students. The Court noted that the Minnesota statute granted such aid to parents of all students, whether they attended public or private schools.

While the Court has prevented states from directly funding parochial schools, it has not stopped them from aiding religious colleges and universities. In Tilton v. Richardson (1971), the Court permitted the use of public funds for the construction of facilities in religious institutions of higher learning. It was found that there was no "excessive entanglement" since the buildings were themselves not religious, unlike teachers in parochial schools, and because the aid came in the form of a one-time grant, rather than continuous assistance. One of the largest recent controversies over the amendment centered on school vouchers—government aid for students to attend private and predominantly religious schools. The Supreme Court, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), upheld the constitutionality of private school vouchers, turning away an Establishment Clause challenge.

[edit] State-sanctioned prayer in public schools

Earl Warren was Chief Justice when Engel v. Vitale was decided.Further important decisions came in the 1960s, during the Warren Court era. One of the Court's most controversial decisions came in Engel v. Vitale in 1962. The case involved the mandatory daily recitation by public school officials of a prayer written by the New York Board of Regents, which read "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country". The Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional and struck it down, with Justice Black writing "it is no part of the official business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried out by the Government." The reading of the Lord's Prayer or of the Bible in the classroom of a public school by the teacher was ruled unconstitutional in 1963. The ruling did not apply to parochial or private schools in general. The decision has been met with both criticism and praise. Many social conservatives are critical of the court's reasoning, including the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Conversely, the ACLU and other civil libertarian groups hailed the court's decision.

In Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), the case involving the mandatory reading of the Lord's Prayer in class, the Supreme Court introduced the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests, which were to be used to determine compatibility with the establishment clause. Essentially, the law in question must have a valid secular purpose, and its primary effect must not be to promote or inhibit a particular religion. Since the law requiring the recital of the Lord's Prayer violated these tests, it was struck down. The "excessive entanglement" test was added in Lemon v. Kurtzman (vide supra).

In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law whereby students in public schools would observe daily a period of silence for the purpose of private prayer. The Court did not, however, find that the moment of silence was itself unconstitutional. Rather, it ruled that Alabama lawmakers had passed the statute solely to advance religion, thereby violating the secular purpose test.

The 1990s were marked by controversies surrounding religion's role in public affairs. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the offering of prayers by religious officials before voluntarily attended ceremonies such as graduation. Thus, the Court established that the state could not conduct religious exercises at public occasions even if attendance was not strictly compulsory. In Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000), the Court ruled that even a vote of the student body could not authorize student-led prayer prior to school events.

In 2002, controversy centered on a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2002), which struck down a California law providing for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance (which includes the phrase "under God") in classrooms. Each House of Congress passed resolutions reaffirming their support for the pledge; the Senate vote was 99–0 and the House vote was 416–3. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case, but did not rule on the merits, instead reversing the Ninth Circuit's decision on standing grounds.

***APPLYS TO CAMP VERDE***
Religious displays
The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental. In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the Latin Vulgate translation). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that "the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah...simply recognizes that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society."

In 2001, Roy Moore, formerly the Chief Justice of Alabama, installed a monument to the Ten Commandments in the state judicial building. In 2003, he was ordered in the case of Glassroth v. Moore by a federal judge to remove the monument, but he refused to comply, ultimately leading to his removal from office. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the lower court's decision to stand.

On 2 March 2005, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two cases involving religious displays, Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. These were the first cases directly dealing with display of the Ten Commandments the Court had heard since Stone v. Graham (1980). These cases were decided on 27 June 2005. In Van Orden, the Court upheld, by a 5-4 vote, the legality of a Ten Commandments display at the Texas state capitol due to the monument's "secular purpose." In McCreary County, however, the Court ruled 5-4 that displays of the Ten Commandments in several Kentucky county courthouses were illegal because they were not clearly integrated with a secular display, and thus were considered to have a religious purpose.

Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009
Article comment by: Savataba

So many support the cross going back up. I laugh at you fools. If it was any other kind of symbol then you would be up in arms to have it taken down. Intolerant Christians! If you want to preach your methods to your own populace then do it in the privacy of your own home or temple. Preaching in public is a scornful act and pushing your beliefs onto someone else is the same kind of crap the people couldn't stand for in the late 1700s.

Posted: Thursday, July 9, 2009
Article comment by: Freethinker

If you want to 'Save the cross' have the dinner in a CHURCH and not in a GOVERNMENT OWNED building and then Constitution and the christians will be happy. Until then, follow the law.



Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to Facebook character limits. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Required
Last Name:
Required
Telephone:
Required
Email:
Required
Comment:
Required
Passcode:
Required
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.
   


Advanced Search

HSE - We want to hear from you
Find more about Weather in Camp Verde, AZ
Click for weather forecast





Find It Features Blogs Celebrate Extras Submit Other Publications Local Listings
Classifieds | Place an Ad | Galleries | Kudos | Obituaries | Real Estate Search | Subscriber Services | e-News | RSS | Site Map | Contact Us
LB - Lamb Auto 0727 Chevy Commercial C

© Copyright 2016 Western News&Info, Inc.® Camp Verde Bugle ® is the information source for Cottonwood and Verde Valley area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Western News&Info, Inc.® Camp Verde Bugle Online is a service of WNI. By using the Site, cvbugle.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to submit your questions, comments or suggestions. Camp Verde Bugle Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info Inc.® All Rights Reserved.

Software © 1998-2016 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved