The good news from Rapid City city councilman Ron Sasso: he's pushing repeal of Rapid City's bike registration laws. Rapid City Municipal Code Chapter 10.64 currently requires residents to pay a $1 fee to register every bicycle. Anyone selling a bicycle must report the name and address of the bicycle buyer to the city. Sasso wisely advocates repeal of this nefarious bicycle registry, lest the government use that registry to punish patriots who would pedal to the revolution.
Oops—sorry. I'm still suffering Tea Party withdrawal. Sasso just thinks the unenforced bike regulations serve no good and discourage bicycle riding.
The bad news from Ron Sasso: he's running for theocrat-in-chief with a Web video that opens with the word Faith and defends the government establishment of religion through official council prayers. Sasso contends that he has a First Amendment right to use the public dais to promote his religion.
Sasso fails to understand that the First Amendment grants him the freedom of speech and religion as an individual, not as an agent of the government elected by the people. He fails to recognize that the First Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, protects individuals from exactly the sort of government encroachment on their freedom of religion that Sasso wants to commit from the dais. And he fails to explain how his faith will fill any potholes or pay any police.
Bradley Estes is challenging Sasso for his Ward 5 council seat. His billboards tell me that Estes creates jobs. Estes tells RCJ that he's not a politician... even though by running for office and seeking to affect how we live together in the polis, he is a politician. No word (and apparently, no website) from Estes yet on where he stands on bikes or theocracy.
I know Brad and he is a reasonable, level headed person. I hope he gains some traction in the race. Anything has to be an improvement over the current council. And neither Kooiker or Kirkeby came out looking too good in the Journal article about the mayor's race, if you ask me.
Brad built the Holiday Inn, Deadwood, my last commercial contract. He's a great guy.
I was web surfing and came across your post. I must have missed it a while ago. Okay, let me take a shot at answering. First, I didn't put the video together but I approved it. Personally, faith is very important to me. Faith is different than religion, but that's a different discussion.
I have never supported establishing a religion. I supported prayer before meetings. I also invited the local atheists to lead invocation. It's not about one religion...it's about faith. If you can, please tell me what is wrong with "Love your neighbor as yourself." Even Ghandi said he would be a follower of Jesus if he ever met a true follower of Jesus...which is really where the problem lies. Too often people will distort the message of Christianity. I try not to, but I also am not perfect. As a Christian I am open about my faith and as a result, I am an easy target for people who don't understand my faith.
Ironically, you chose to use potholes and police officers as your examples of where money should be spent. I brought forward an ordinance that insures that roads are built to specifications and are tested before the City picks up the tab. It was approved unanimously. Also, during budget hearings I made a motion to add police officers to the budget---but also tried to off-set the additional expense with 50% of the CPI. The latter part wasn't approved. I also added money for road striping to make our roads safer. I think I was one of the few council members who spent time looking at making changes to ordinances to improve Rapid City rather than staying in the status quo.
Lastly, your blog is a great example of the beauty of our government. Freedom of speech. We are not always going to agree but it is great that we can disagree and freely voice our opinions.
Best regards,
Ron
Ron, thanks for checking in! It's fun to have a reader—heck, someone I've written about!—challenge me to think about something I wrote something many moons ago and make sure I made sense.
Good work on the potholes and police, Ron. That's the common business of the city and state that we all need to focus on when we carry the people's mandate.
I'll even spot you some faith this evening: public figures should exemplify and encourage a certain "faith": faith that we can solve our problems, faith that we can get along, faith that we can leave a better society for coming generations.
But that's a secular, not supernatural, faith. I have no problem with politicians who affirm that secular faith from the seat/dais to which they've been elected. I think the Establishment Clause and I could even withstand an elected official telling constituents to love their neighbors. That's not an affirmation of a god; that's practical advice (though maybe with a whiff of socialism? Let's road-test that message with some Rapid City Tea Partiers...).
But where you establish religion is where you hyperextend your personal First Amendment rights into affirming your particular God from the public podium which you hold strictly by the grace of the voters and the democratic process. If you are a citizen attending a council meeting, you have that First Amendment right to stand up and profess your God and Savior the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But if you are taking the mic as an elected official, you do not have the same right, because you are speaking as an agent of the city/state/government. An elected official has no more right to invoke God on the record at the beginning of an official meeting than I do as a public school teacher to begin my lessons with an exhortation to the kids to study hard because there is no God to help them. I can say that people outside of class, but not from the teacher's desk that I enjoy solely by the grace of the school board.
I have to say that I always enjoy your responses even when I don't totally agree with them. Now, if my faith is part of who I am, and that faith is part of why I got elected, my First Amendment is not surrendered because I am an elected official. That would be the same if my faith was in The Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of God. The voters ultimately decide if they like what an elected official is doing or not. I believe that an elected official speaking his or her mind and sharing their beliefs (whatever they may be) does not constitute establishing a religion.
Taken to an extreme, if an elected official decided to use every discussion to profess his or her belief in something (or in nothing), it is highly likely that the voters would vote that person out of office.
Your point regarding a school teacher is an interesting one because, like an elected official, a teacher may be under scrutiny because he or she shared their beliefs with children. They still have their First Amendment rights, but it could cost them their job if it is a distraction (or if someone files a lawsuit). Then there are options of working at a public school or a private school.
Thanks again for the discussion.
The fact that the majority approves of your religion and votes for you because of it does not change the fact that there is a distinction between our rights as individuals and our obligations as public figures occupying positions of public power. Your option of letting the voters decide on cases of improper establishment of religion sounds like Phil Jensen's option of letting the market decide on cases of racial discrimination. We can't subject basic rights to majority vote; we must maintain Constitutional protections against some errors and not wait for the majority to come to its senses.
I think the real difference is not about speaking about personal beliefs, but legislating their personal beliefs---whatever they may be. If someone holds a belief to their core of their being, that person cannot remove that as it is as integral as personality. Too often in politics people do not hold a belief firm and will change based on which way the political wind is blowing.
For example, on the discussion on the City's invocation I opposed creating an ordinance for prayer (and was criticized for it). I fully supported continuing the invocation, allowing it to be flexible, but felt it would be crossing the line if an ordinance was created as it could run the risk of establishing a religion. With that said, I also felt that it was impossible for me to talk about prayer without talking about my personal beliefs on it---but also did not criticize others for their difference of opinions.
Ordinance versus practice—that's still a thin distinction. The moment the meeting gavels to order, you're acting in your official capacity. Saying a prayer in your official elected capacity establishes religion. Atheism is a core belief integral to my personality, but I do not habitually and formally invoke that core belief in my official actions as a public school teacher, nor would I defend atheists who abuse their public positions by doing so. Responsible public figures can and must erect that wall.
As always, I enjoy the discussion. Here's a challenge for you: Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. It's etched in stone in the Lincoln Memorial. It was part of Lincoln's platform to help get our country through the Civil War, abolish the horror of slavery, and reunite the country. It invokes God and the Bible (while also showing divide and unity). Was he right or wrong in sharing his belief in that circumstance?
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
The 14 Characteristics of Fascism http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
I think he was wrong, but we're right to honor it. It's part of our history. We can't change history, right or wrong. Lincoln was a figure of his times. Times have changed. Promoting public displays of piety at council meetings are divisive in this day and age. Lincoln's calling was to resolve divisions. Are there any other mid-19th century values that you believe should be emulated in the present day, Mr. Sasso?
Councilman-Hard to place proper context something a century and a half ago that had threatened to rip this fledgling nation apart. Personally,I hate it when pols inject religion into any discussion,especially in the present tense. What is so good about god that he/she/it rates praise and credit for all the good stuff,but pols never damn him/her/it for all the tragedies and senseless killings that are performed in his/her/its name? If hurricanes and tornadoes are acts of god,join me in damning god to hell for not being the loving entity christians always claim. Invoking god,as done by pols,seems to be a defense mechanism so pols don't have to accept blame.
Mid-19th century values: respect for elders and manners are two that come to mind. Thoreau's civil disobedience was a great idea that should still be valued. Times change but often there is really nothing new under the sun. I think anyone who has watched me at enough council meetings in the past knows that my main concern is getting the job done. I just am open about my faith if anyone asks (which typically doesn't happen on the dais) and I am often a target because of my belief. I have prayed many times on the dais---silently. That is part of my faith that no one can remove. I don't believe there is anything wrong with "love your neighbor as yourself." Our country is made stronger by its ability to accept differences of opinions as well as the ability to express them.
"I do not see why the schoolmaster should be taxed to support the priest, and not the priest the schoolmaster." -- Henry David Thoreau
Well, respectfully and in my best manners, I remind you that 19th century Christian values with respect to women demanded complete submission to men and that Manifest Destiny had its origins in Christian thought, the slaughter of Indians and the theft of their land being regarded as a "manifestation" of that "destiny." That you consider yourself a target is ludicrous, considering that you initiated the criticism by your words and actions insisting that your religious values should be forced on the community at large.
http://assholeoftheday.us/post/80394817314/richard-ross-asshole-of-the-day-for-march-22
Larry, OMG.
John, GMO.
East North Street is a cluster, innit?
@John: I agree with you that the Bible has been misinterpreted and misused. To correct you, I have never insisted that my values or my faith should be forced on the community at large. Even in the discussion about the City's invocation, I invited atheists to do an invocation. When words are twisted to mean something different and derogatory, I believe that is an attack. I go back to what Jesus said as a commandment, "love your neighbor as yourself." If anyone is truly following that commandment then most of the concerns that you mention would not have happen. I also disagree with the roles of women in that time period and I disagree with people who feel that women are not to have a voice as it goes against what is in the New Testament. @ Larry - The schoolmaster is not taxed to support the priest. Very different funding sources. @ Cory - At least I help drive up your traffic! :)
Maneuvering a refrigerated truck through the streets of Rapid City for three years teaches the driver a few things about traffic flow.
7am to 8:30 is bad. Noon is bad. 4:30pm to 6 is bad.
The train obstructs multiple egress opportunities simultaneously, often moving in the same direction as that restaurant that only allows deliveries during an open window closing in two minutes.
On one exasperating morning thirty years ago, I shouted out of the cab of the truck, "Omaha Street should be one way from West Boulevard to Mountain View and West Main should be one-way all the way to St. Joe!" True story.
Then, it dawned on me that Mountain View should be one-way to Jackson Boulevard, Jackson Boulevard should be one-way from Mountain View to West Main and Cross Street one way to Omaha St. Left-hand turn lanes appeared to me as if in a vision.
Why do people have to die before things get fixed?
"OMG"! Does the "G" stand for God? Am I really making progress here?
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :)
My sincerely held,religious beliefs say it is immoral to fill potholes because they have souls. Do you violate my sincerely held,religious beliefs to protect the public?
You invited atheists to do the invocation? Very good. Best of luck with the campaign.
@ Larry - Trains are always problematic and we have very little to no control over them. We can't even fix the road directly over the tracks because the City doesn't own it there. Omaha is a DOT road, so the City has input into decisions on it but we're still limited. That's part of the reason that there won't be an overhead crosswalk on Omaha anytime soon.
The answer to your big question is that people usually don't like change. Changing a two-way to a one-way is a big change. Interestingly, a consultant just recommended making Main and St. Joe two-way streets while also making the sidewalks bigger. I disagree with that because the plan would also eliminate much needed parking downtown.
A death is something that makes people think about changing something. There have been stop signs put up where they shouldn't need to be---usually spurred on by a tragic death.
Pray or prey?
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/ancient-signs-warn-black-hills-flooding/article_f66d9f7d-1a73-58e1-860b-18ead8306bbb.html
@ Mike - Actually, I'm not sure on your pothole question. I put forward an ordinance that passed unanimously while I was on council that makes sure that roads that are built are tested so that they do not fail early---ideally, preventing potholes. So, I guess I would be preventing the souls from going into the potholes and creating the conflicting problem of needing to be filled to protect the public.
@ John - Yes, I did. Thank you!