Rasmussen: 74 Percent of Adults Support Religious Displays on Public Property

Rasmussen™ reported today that 74 percent of adults support religious displays on public property.

Only 17 percent of adults believe nativity scenes or menorahs have no place on public property.

Government offices and their holders generally back down from law suits as they are so costly. The suits are often a financially lucrative undertaking for organizations, such as the ACLU, under 42 U.S.C., Section 1988, of the United States Code.

It took one complaint earlier this year to cause Circuit Clerk Steve Helms to remove a poster depicting historic scenes, pictures from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the 10 commandments from his County office.

Presiding County Commissioner Dave Coonrod advised Helms to remove the poster, later hosting choirs of Christmas carolers in the rotunda of the County Courthouse. There were no complaints about the carols, sometimes religious, being sung on public property.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Democrat Pot calls Republican Kettle

More thoughts on Commissioner Coonrod's Alarming Statements

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the comments made by County Commissioner Coonrod today. It seems to me the Greene County Commission is sending a lot of mixed messages regarding what is appropriate and not appropriate in regards to free speech these days.

Greene County Presiding Commissioner Dave Coonrod recently said he was speaking for the entire County Commission when he stated that even if Circuit Clerk Steve Helms disassociated himself from his County office when writing a letter to the editor he didn't have a right to do so. If you are interested in Coonrod's comments you'll find them linked in a previous JackeHammer posting.

I didn't weigh in during the election cycle when there was a controversy over whether Helms should have a poster hanging in his County office which, among other historical references, included the 10 Commandments but, Commissioner Coonrod did. He advised Helms to remove the poster from his office because it might be offensive to some patrons of the office.

As an American and a Christian, I had no problem with Helms displaying that poster including the 10 Commandments but, if I was opposed to the 10 Commandments hanging in the Circuit Clerk's office why wouldn't I also be opposed to a daily choir singing Christmas carols at the County Courthouse?

Don't get me wrong, as an American and a Christian I think it is lovely that choirs are singing Christmas carols in the County Courthouse rotunda. I love the idea.

I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

It took one offended atheist's complaint to cause Helms to remove that poster from the Circuit Clerk's office wall. Why isn't this atheist complaining about Christmas carols sung in the Greene County Courthouse rotunda? Could this have been an attack on an incumbent Republican Circuit Clerk in an attempt to effect the November election!?

I'm just asking some questions here, I don't know the answers, and I've already admitted to being naive in the past so, feel free to honor me with that moniker anytime. It's been highly publicized that Christmas carols are being sung in the County Courthouse rotunda but no one seems to be offended enough to complain and the very County Commissioner who went on the record as opposing a poster which depicted American historical events and contained a religious reference has sanctioned these carols. Some people would say there's a word for that, but today, they are being as quiet as a Christmas mouse. ;)

I am opposed to singular citizens censoring religious freedom under the guise of tolerance for all and I am opposed to opening a can of worms which gives elite, elected office holders the power to make judgement calls for everyone about what is acceptable and unacceptable speech, about what is appropriate or inappropriate religious reference and about what can be worn on a T-shirt within a County building. I don't care if you are a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Constitution Party member, an Independent, a Green Party member or a member of any other number of political organizations...free speech is under constitutional protection for a reason. It is in times when an individual's speech offends a person that the wheat is separated from the chaff in regards to whether a person believes it is a valued right.

Freedom of speech should not be used as a partisan exercise.

In a highly publicized public meeting, an independently elected County Commission office holder, speaking on behalf of other independently elected County Commission office holders, admonished another independently elected County office holder for exercising his freedom to express his opinion in the public arena. In doing so, that independently elected County Commission office holder exercised his freedom to express the opinions of himself and the elected Commission in the public arena. It appears that Coonrod believes he has retained the right to express his, and the entire Commissions,' personally held opinions in a public forum while believing that Helms should be censored for exercising his own.

Ironic, ain't it?

Greene County Presiding Commissioner's Comments Alarming

Presiding Greene County Commissioner Dave Coonrod is a charming, likeable guy, however, I was alarmed by his comments at a recent County Court "en banc" meeting.

Dirk Vanderhart of the Springfield New-Leader published an on-line link to the "dressing down" of Circuit Clerk Steve Helms at his Web log yesterday.

Coonrod was upset about a letter Helm's wrote to the editor of the News-Leader. In the letter, Helms took a position in opposition of the 1-cent sales tax the City of Springfield will place on the election ballot in early February, 2009.

The dispute between Coonrod and Helms came close on the heels of controversy regarding letters written by assistant City Attorney Duke McDonald. Some members of the community are calling for McDonald to be fired because he wrote letters to the editor expressing his views regarding homosexuality, while others defend him.

Helms pointed out that he had not signed the letter as the Circuit Clerk but the News-Leader had added his position, internally. At issue is an elected or city/county/state employee's right to exercise free speech, as a private citizen, in the public arena.

Coonrod, apparently, doesn't feel Helms has such a right. After an exchange in which the Circuit Clerk inquired whether he has given up his right to offer an opinion regarding the running of the City, Coonrod replied, "Yes, you do (give up your right). Yes, you do. It says here (in the News-Leader), you're the Circuit Clerk. In my opinion, you do."

Coonrod went on to state:

"You're not getting it. It doesn't matter even if you do state...you can state, at the very start, 'I'm writing this letter not as the Circuit Clerk of Greene County but, I'm writing this letter as a citizen of Greene County, or Springfield, or whatever you are,' you're still a Circuit Clerk."

Helms' response referred to, as the News-Leader reported, Coonrod's dismissal of Helms' opinion regarding the City's handling of the police fire pension fund, due to Helms' past bankruptcy filing:

"You (Coonrod) can say, 'You can't say anything because you made a mistake.' I think I have as much right as anybody because I'm pointing out mistakes that are currently being made," Helms replied.

Though the voice of the judge speaking in response to Coonrod's attack on Helms is not identified in the recording, the News-Leader indicated it was Associate Circuit Judge Dan Imhof who responded to Coonrod's attack on Helms:

"You're never going to see me writing a letter to the editor, I'm not going to ever do it. He's (Helms) elected on a partisan ticket, he's an independent office holder, he's got a constituency that goes beyond just people going to the Circuit Clerk's office, you know. It may be wise or unwise for him to write letters like that and I can understand your concern but, I'm not going to try to censor him."

I thought I'd add my opinion to the mix. I think Duke McDonald and Steve Helms both have the same free speech rights as any other citizen. I also believe that employees of the City of Springfield should be able to discuss their political views without the threat of firing by the City.

A young Constitution Party candidate who ran for a congressional seat in the November election found himself faced with deciding between running for the seat or losing his job with the City. Under Section 6.11. Prohibitions, a City employee is restricted in their political activities, and there is plenty of wiggle room, in some areas of the section, for interpretation regarding the enforcement of that section.

Section 6.11 was used to force Travis Maddox to either give up his run for Congressman Roy Blunt's seat or give up his job, Maddox chose the latter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~