Site of Easter service in Bergen now county owned property, and that could be a problem

So what next, do we bar church groups from having a picnic in the county park for fear their saying grace will invoke a lawsuit from some atheist squirrel?

The county is not running, planning or sponsoring the event, It is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion

Governing out of fear is not governing at all.

It's an unfortunate fact of life these days that there are "fringe" people waiting to impose their beliefs (or purported beliefs) on all of society to either attract attention to themselves, ruin other's good times, or impose their personal beliefs on all of society. It's most likely all three in most cases.

Unfortunately the PC courts have all too often kowtowed to these individuals - especially when in comes to impeding on the rights of those of us that cherish being able to celebrate our faith in Christ.

I can't blame Bergen leadership from wanting to protect those they represent from a long, drawn out, and expensive court battle brought on by the whim of one individual.

Sad to see as for years the Village of Oakfield always allowed use of the gazebo and triangle park for church services during special occasions. Another situation where Government is removing God. Next thing you know they won't be reciting the Pledge because we are "one nation under God".

short and sweet,well said jeff

I understand the potential legal ramifications being considered here. However, when are “we the people” going to demand that the majority concensus should rule? I realize our nation is not a Democracy but rather a Republic, which by definition is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them”. Therefore IMO if the majority of the people of the district approve and so direct their elected representatives to allow such an activity as a Christian service to be held on government property, then it should be so. Whereas if the majority of the people of the district disapprove and indicate this to their representatives, then it should not be allowed.

Each situation should be determined separately. No “precedent should be set” especially if it infringes on the wishes of the majority of the citizens in whom the power of government resides. In other words, if the majority of the people agree that a Christian service is OK, and a majority of the people agree that another religions service is not OK to be held on goverrnment [the people’s] property, then this is the way it should be.

When are we going to stop the madness that has taken over in the USA wherein so many minority and fringe groups scream and yell, and “demand” that they be given equal [and often even “special”] treatment, and they get it?

Personal Liberty is one thing. Minority groups having equality with the majority is quite another. And I don’t believe it was ever intended to be so in our Constitutional Republic.

Why don't people mind their own business, and do their own thing?

This crap has to stop !!!

First-off: nobody has challenged anything; this is all speculation. Why didn't interested parties consider the impact of this transfer of ownership PRIOR to the transfer. The churches have been using Ely's hill for Easter services for decades. The fact that the county purchased this hill for construction and operation of an emergency transmission tower bears no inherent prohibition on alternative uses for the site. ...Having said that, if the county deems the property available for alternative uses, they will necessarily have to decide what general uses are permissible, and who might avail those alternative uses. ...And, yes, there are now liability issues to consider. Why didn't they plant the damn tower next to the existing cell-phone tower on the OTHER hill in Bergen? (Dumbies) Just a suggestion: why not pass a law that the site is available for Bergen-based organizations that have previously used the site, during the months of March and April from sunrise until noon? The churches can likely get a temporary rider to cover insurance for one day at nominal expense. ...Talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill!

"Legislator Ray Cianfrini said today he is worried that somebody could sue the county over allowing a religious service on the property..."
Uh-h-h! Say what?

So let me get this straight. If I were to go onto Genesee County property and say a prayer, Mr. Cianfrini is worried the county might be sued? And how, pray tell (pun intended), would Genesee County patrol and/or monitor ALL of the county's properties (of which there are dozens) EVERY MINUTE of EVERY DAY to stop one person, or two people, or even 20 people from doing just such a thing?

It would be a great Easter "GIFT" to DEMOCRACY if several THOUSAND people showed up for that upcoming service on that hill. What are they gonna do? Put thousands of praying people in jail? Pepper-spray them? Send in the 'dogs'? That'll be on Youtube AND National TV before the sun sets.

I say the worshipers go for it! But, that's just my way of thinking.

C M has it right. All they have to do is make the site available "for Bergen-based organizations that have previously used the site, during the months of March and April from sunrise until noon?"

I do, however disagree with you, Brian. I believe this is the first time, usually you and I are on the same page and paragraph. Majority rule should never preclude the rights of the individual. That is called the tyranny of the majority. That's how things like Eminent Domain happen. It's the reason we are not a democracy. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for dinner.

I don't see how an Easter service being held at a remote site would violate anyone's rights, so in this case it doesn't really apply. Actually, the case could be made that not allowing the churches the use of this site, which they have done for 42 years without incident, based only on speculation is a violation of their rights. If someone challenges this, all the county has to do is offer the site to their group on another sunday.

Government is supposed to exist to protect individual rights. That is precisely what the writers of the constitution had in mind.

An added task for the dreaded Matress Police: Prayer Patrol.

Thumbs up C.M., excellent points

I am thinking on this issue and I agree with the liability issue being valid. However Cifriani's comment about a religious group and this trend of removing religious references has gone way overboard.

Pc be damned, I think it time for religious organizations of all kind to do exactly what these minority groups do. Lets look at the text of the 1st Amendment closely

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now I may be a bit pedantic but removing students ability to have a prayer, or christian group, or removing longtime religious types of displays from federal buildings. Or even disallowing religious groups to use county land for a ceremony they have been doing at the spot for decades, or even discouraging a merry christmas or happy hanukah guring the holiday season. Dont these and the other thing we see happening violate the free excercise of religion? I mean for someone to sue a city council for opening a meeting with a prayer seems to be a violation of this. Government reps are also granted these right and if said council allows it. Isnt a court telling them they cant...prohibiting the free excercise of that religion?

So maybe someone ought to contact Mr. Cifriani and point this out to him that since he uttered the concern about it being a religious group any denial to them would be a violation of their rights?

I think its time we the people start putting our feet down on this chipping away of our constitutional rights.

By the way Ed I like that way of thinking.... If every Church in the County participated in this particular Easter celebration not only would it be a testament to the unity of the County's religious community, but it would cause the powers that be to consider their options, being politicans I think your right, they would do nothing so that they dont look like the epitome of the evil Govt bully they can revert to when dealing with the public LOL

If you read my 1st post carefully, I said that we are NOT a Democracy, but rather a Republic. And that a Republic by definition is “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them”. So once again I offer that the majority rule does have a place and function in our Republic. Personal liberties guaranteed by our Constitution should never be infringed [even though they are regularly], however ones personal liberty is not to be allowed to infringe on another’s personal liberty, and there’s the rub. That’s why we are also a nation of laws, the crux here is that our laws should be determined by the wishes of the “majority of the people” through the service of their elected representation [which too often does not function properly - via cronyism, special interests, lobbying...]

If a religious group wants to have a service on government [the people’s] property and the majority of the people say “yes” then the law should enforce that it will be allowed. Conversely, if a religious group wants to have a service on government [the people’s] property and the majority of the people say “no” then the law should enforce that it will not be allowed. The religious folk’s personal right to freedom of religion under the Constitutional protection “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”, has not been violated, because these folks still have the right to “exercise”. The fact that they are not allowed to use someone else’s property to do so is proper if the owner of that property [the government = the people in majority] does not approve, because to allow irregardless would violate the property owner’s liberty.

Another analogy: If a Satanic religious group wanted to stage one of their religious services on my property claiming that their personal liberty and freedom to exercise their religion without any restriction was guaranteed by the Constitution... and if I tried to deny them using my backyard I was violating their right to freely practice their religion... I don’t think so.

I have always believed in and supported holding referendums for deciding tough issues such as this. Why do we put a ballot initiative out to approve or disapprove the State building gambling casinos, while at the same time an issue as critical as infringing on the 2nd Amendment via the SAFE Act does not even get enough time for the “peoples” representatives to represent the people’s wishes???

Sadly, Our Republic is No Longer Working Properly.

I did read your comment fully, Brian, I always do. You are usually writing what I'm thinking, but we are parting ways on this majority rules thing. The SAFE act and the casino proposition are perfect examples of what I'm trying to say. Even though they were presented in different ways, still the majority forced both of these things on the minority. The SAFE act through the fact that there are more representatives from downstate than upstate, so it can't be overturned. Those of us upstate don;t want the SAFE act, but it is forced on us, violating our rights. The casino prop. was voted down upstate, but enough people downstate voted for it that we now have it. There are numerous other things we can point to, but the bottom line is: NY State is an exact example of how majority rules and infringes on the rights of the minority. Us, upstate. If the state was concerned with protecting individual rights instead of socialism, think how different it would be. Your analogy regarding the satanists doesn't work, because your right to your property is first and foremost. In other words, they have the right to practice their religion, but no right to yur property. It's not complicated. The county doesn't have the same right as it is our property, the citizens of the county. Allowing a service in a remote site, even though it is county owned does not violate anyone's rights.

Tom, you forgot the dreaded clothesline police.

Brian, you are incorrect on there being any majority rule in a republic . The simplest definition I could find on the difference between the two is this....

Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.

So again I re-iterate that the First Amendment says that the Government should not be PROHIBITING the free exercise of any individuals religion. The land being county land paid for by the taxes of EVERYONE shouldn't be saying no to a group because they want to have a religious ceremony there. Whereas if the same group demanded the same from you as a property ownernyou have every right to say no as the laws framed by our constitution say that you do. have that right.

As a matter of fact your opinion is proven to be wrong at 2 separate times in the past. Women's Sufferage, women were granted the right to vote AGAINST the majority opinion because the Constitution's framework favored equality. The same thing for Civil Right, equality was considered the legal and moral thing to do, even over the objections of the MAJORITY.

Brian; You are absolutely correct that the republic in general does not function as it should according to our Constitution, due to corruption, in other words, men. That is obviously the real problem. you're right it is sad

"A republic is literally a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter"
- Wikipedia

“A government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them”
- Merriam Webster

"A government which 'derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people'; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior."
"It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the 'great body of the society', not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it"
- James Madison

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ‘deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’”
- Declaration of Independence

This sure sounds like the majority has a strong say to me...

The laws of the land should be established by the majority consensus, but laws should never infringe on the Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. This is why laws need to pass the test of being Constitutional. [Unfortunately we do things backwards in the USA now. A law is law until proven to be un-Constitutional... such was the case with District of Columbia v. Heller, and hopefully one day a similar determination will be handed down on the SAFE Act.]

The arguments put forth above are obviously based on pure Libertarian ideology, and I too am more aligned with that than the other thinking, but not totally. It is incompatible to think that "all personal rights" can exist at all times, in all places, under all circumstances without overlapping and consequently infringing on another’s rights... not even in a perfect world.

If it's quotes you want:

“the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.”
James Madison, Federalist paper #10

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.” Thomas Jefferson - inaugural address

The founders (and I agree) believed Individual rights are innate and come from the creator and that no one including a government or the will of the majority can take them away. Therefore, the majority has no legitimate power to vote away or otherwise abridge the natural rights of political, ethnic, religious, or other minorities.

I accept that practically it doesn't always work that way, but I'll never agree that it is proper.

I especially love the Jefferson quote... I should have used it myself for my argument. Dave you said it earlier that we agree on much and you are right... and I feel we are not that far apart here either.

It is funny Brian that you cite 'The District Of Columbia vs Heller' in reference to the SAFE ACT.

Unfortunately, and most unfortunately at that, the precedent set in that ruling may work against those of us that believe that the SAFE ACT is unconstitutional at it's root.

From the ruling:
Paragraph 2

<strong>"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."</strong>

Because of the nature of the Safe Act, the only way that someone can achieve 'Standing' which is necessary to move through the court system, is to get convicted of violating the SAFE ACT and then proceeding with appeal. 'Heller' would be the last precedent that a complainant would want to use in appeal, but you can bet your sweet bippie that the State will bring it into argument. The SAFE ACT does not explicitly forbid the ownership of hand guns or long guns, but does implicitly forbid types of those weapons which is noted as accepted in paragraph 2 of the 'Heller Decision'

The crux of the fight over the Safe Act if it makes it to the supreme court is going to have to be based on how a weapon is determined to be 'Dangerous and Unusual' not under the basis of Heller which dealt with the right to own a handgun at all.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." is a perfectly fine personal philosophy. When it becomes a governmental philosophy it leads to the gulag and the death camp.

The American experiment was the declaration of the individual human being as a sovereign being endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. Rights as a thing inherent to being, not things which are granted by others who managed to get more power, more money or better weapons than those that they would enslave.

Does that mean that people have to act like grown adults? Well, yes it does. If you want mommy to take care of you, go somewhere mommy has been empowered by the people with the exclusive use of arms to take care of you. We will not miss you. Just saying.

Great point Mark... actually I have had similar concerns and discussions with the gun advocacy groups I belong to [GOA, NYSPRA, SCOPE, SAF, NRA] about this very possibility. The fact that SAFE Act does not deny the right to "keep and bear" [own and carry], but infringes on one of the purposes of the right [for personal protection], by limiting the types of guns and especially the # of bullets that can be loaded.

I'm sure most have heard it before, but what if an individual is attacked by 4 scumbags with intent to rob and hurt/kill and he is carrying a concealed hand gun with just the "legal" 7 bullets... he'd better be a pretty damned good shot. Does this not infringe on the unalienable right to protect ones life?

I am with you on that Brian, that is why I have been practicing speed loading magazine changes every weekend, :)

Brian,

Our Dear Leaders have determined that it is better that an innocent citizen be killed or maimed by a member of our criminal class in the pursuit of their profession, than that a member of our criminal class be inhibited in his or her ability to creatively pursue that profession.

You didn't get your degree from an Ivy League school did you? If you had made the effort, you might understand things.

It may be a Union Work Rule thing, though. I haven't been able to get a copy of the contract.

You're right, we both are on the side of liberty, versus authoritarians. It may seem like splitting hairs sometimes, but these conversations are necessary and help me in my intellectual journey. Thank You.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." OMFG. I had never seen that one before. What a revolting statement. I will be interested to see if and when someone does challenge the SAFE act's constitutionality.

Well Dave you can not yell fire in a crowded movie theater or mount a 20mm anti aircraft gun in the bed of your pickup truck while towing a functional 105mm Howitzer. You can't place a minefield around your property and you can not utter a threat against the President Of The United States. Even if you have freedom of speech and the right to bare arms, That is all that and similar actions are all that is meant by that statement in the court finding.

Much of this argument that has come through on this thread reminds me of what gets lost in the conversation.

<strong>Our Republic is not governed by people, it is governed by the law with the consent of the people.</strong> there is a difference. The very basis of our constitution is that we elect representatives to make these laws. What has gradually occurred over the 20th century is that populism has crept it's way into the process. It began with the 17th Amendment and snowballed from there.

There are limits on all of our rights as I pointed out in the first paragraph and as the Supreme Court stated in The District of Columbia v, Heller. What this does illustrate is that elections matter, whether it be for some small town council, your state representatives, you members of congress or the Presidency itself. Something that I know that you believe.

No minefield around my property? boy you are a total killjoy. Call before you come over

I'll do a fly by first Dave, unless of coarse you are packing stinger missiles.

BTW, for some of those who apparently don't have an Ivy League education, the proper [final] word used is "unalienable".

Actually you can yell fire in a movie theater. If you do there will be ramifications, but no one can take away ones natural ability to do so. [Unless of course we go to the extreme of pre-emptive action such as cutting the person's tongue out before he has a chance to do the yelling, whether he's even contemplating doing so or not. You know, the un-Constitutional approach... the way things are done more and more these days in the USA]

You can also rob a bank at gun point, but there would be ramifications, but no one can take away your natural ability to do so, even with the SAFE ACT. That is exactly why we shouldn't be limiting the number of rounds in a magazine, rather we should be ensuring that the ramifications of robbing the bank are so severe that most would think twice before doing so.

no but I probably should get some. My house's co-ordinates are probably pre-loaded into a drone program just in case. Fly by won't help much, as I live in a cabin deep in the woods like Ted Kaczynski.

INFARED is a wonderful thing Dave, how else would those drones find you?

I'm stockin' up on these.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/350823436227