Warren is probably about to be sued over some weird religious stuff at city hall.

**Scottathew** · July-24-14, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

One needs to consider that Christianity has been close to a state-religion for much of our history. So I am in favor of grandfathering in some religious references in our civic life -- but not adding. We can respect existing traditions while not bringing new ones along with us as we modernize our civic institutions. I just don't see the need for a fight here. No new religious activities from government. Existing traditions can continue to live for now out of respect for our elders. We seem to have forgotten how to get along. It requires some compromise -- not a quoting of a high court decision.

I disagree with you, your logic is flawed.

Our government represents everyone, not just Christians. There is ZERO need to have religion at city hall, whatsoever.

Warren can solve all this very quickly by booting out the regions, and then they can tell the atheists to take a hike too.

Wesley, your logic could be applied to other things as well. "Well, we've been doing slavery for blacks much of our history. I am in favor of grandfathering slavery for blacks -- but not adding more races. We can respect existing traditions like slavery for blacks while not bringing new races along with us as we modernize our civil rights. I just don't see the need for a fight here."

Past practice doesn't mean that something is right.

**erikd** · July-30-14, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

One needs to consider that Christianity has been close to a state-religion for much of our history. So I am in favor of grandfathering in some religious references in our civic life -- but not adding. We can respect existing traditions while not bringing new ones along with us as we modernize our civic institutions. I just don't see the need for a fight here. No new religious activities from government. Existing traditions can continue to live for now out of respect for our elders. We seem to have forgotten how to get along. It requires some compromise -- not a quoting of a high court decision.

Even if we go by your opinion of allowing existing religious traditions to continue out of respect for elders and history, this situation does not qualify. Since when are "prayer stations" in government buildings an American tradition? This prayer station was set up in 2009. It's not like it has been there for generations.

**animatedmartian** · April-17-14, 01:17 PM

It does seem like a violation of the separation of church and state to have a "prayer station" in the city hall. Though setting up an atheist table right across from it is probably the worst way to address the issue. So much for "reason".

**motz** · April-17-14, 02:43 PM

Jim Fouts, Southeast Michigan's worst mayor however many years and running.

**rb336** · April-17-14, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by motz

Jim Fouts, Southeast Michigan's worst mayor however many years and running.

he was eclipsed for a while by Kwami

**Detroitnerd** · April-17-14, 03:37 PM

cman: Thanks for that link.

Without a doubt, it is the obstinacy of Fouts that is at the bottom of that brouhaha.

There are many idiotic statements in Fouts' letter [[among them, the beauty, "Your statement that there are 'no gods' and 'no angels' is also not provable"), but this could have been avoided by simply keeping a sectarian symbol out of the display.

If there's any justice, the Freedom From Religion people will get a hefty nest egg for their future efforts courtesy of Warren's taxpayers.

**313WX** · April-17-14, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by motz

Jim Fouts, Southeast Michigan's worst mayor however many years and running.

But hey, the people there apparently love them. They've been reelecting him for the past 30 years.

So who are we to judge?

**Zacha341** · April-17-14, 04:42 PM

I feel an Excedrin headache coming on...

**Jimaz** · April-17-14, 05:09 PM

Maybe they could evenly timeshare the "station" among all applicants?

I think it would be hilarious to see a Pastafarian or SubGenius Station there.

**Cliffy** · April-17-14, 05:57 PM

I'd be curious to find out how often its used. Personally, I don't care. Anyone can go in there and pray. Muslim, Jews, Christians, people who worship the devil...

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · April-17-14, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Cliffy

I'd be curious to find out how often its used. Personally, I don't care. Anyone can go in there and pray. Muslim, Jews, Christians, people who worship the devil...

But people who don't believe in prayer cannot make their case? Because....???

**aj3647** · April-18-14, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Cliffy

I'd be curious to find out how often its used. Personally, I don't care. Anyone can go in there and pray. Muslim, Jews, Christians, people who worship the devil...

Wouldn't a simple solution to be to change the name of it to a "Reflection Room?" Then people can use it for whatever they want, prayer included.

**Jimaz** · April-17-14, 06:51 PM

Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion… perhaps around their necks? And maybe — dare I dream it? — maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.

—Jon Stewart

**nain rouge** · April-17-14, 07:00 PM

If there's any justice, the Freedom From Religion people will get a hefty nest egg for their future efforts courtesy of Warren's taxpayers.

This comment right here is a perfect example of a great wrong in this country. Why should Freedom From Religion get a dime from this, aside from maybe compensation for legal fees? Why punish the taxpayers of Warren for incident largely out of their control? It just doesn't make sense.

Sure, Freedom From Religion should be able to seek a ruling outlawing such open displays of religion in a government institution. But free money?! FREE MONEY?! I see no reason why Freedom From Religion deserves free taxpayer money. But that's America, isn't it? Money for nothing.

**Detroitnerd** · April-18-14, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

This comment right here is a perfect example of a great wrong in this country. Why should Freedom From Religion get a dime from this, aside from maybe compensation for legal fees? Why punish the taxpayers of Warren for incident largely out of their control? It just doesn't make sense.

Sure, Freedom From Religion should be able to seek a ruling outlawing such open displays of religion in a government institution. But free money?! FREE MONEY?! I see no reason why Freedom From Religion deserves free taxpayer money. But that's America, isn't it? Money for nothing.[/COLOR]

It's called punitive damages. In many cases, that's the only inducement to get governments and corporations to change their practices.

And my remark is almost completely a bit of overstatement, by the way.

If you'd like to familiarize yourself with civil law and the skinny on the prevailing bias against civil trial lawyers, may I recommend the film "Hot Coffee"? It opened my eyes quite a bit to why the civil law system functions as it does.

**Scottathew** · April-18-14, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

It's called punitive damages. In many cases, that's the only inducement to get governments and corporations to change their practices.

Yup, unless it costs them money, they don't care what the law is.

**Scottathew** · April-17-14, 08:21 PM

I used to live in Warren. This move by Mayor Fouts is a calculated publicity stunt with two objectives.

#1 - Pander to religious folks, especially the older folks that tend to vote and by more religious
#2 - Free press

He doesn't care about the lawsuits that will follow, those are paid for by taxpayers, not his campaign funds.

Fouts is an idiot that only cares about himself, his power, and his money and pensions.

**Hypestyles** · April-18-14, 09:09 PM

is it a semantics issue? If the "prayer station" were converted to "contemplation station"...? LOL, never mind..

**canuck** · April-19-14, 08:19 PM

You could prolly hatch an Easter egg by squeezing it under the armpit that is Warren. That in itself is a miracle. Believe me.

**Don K** · April-20-14, 05:03 PM

The state of the law is really clear on this one. If you allow a religious display on government property, then you can't deny a request for any other religious display [[Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wicca, Pastafarian) or for an anti-religious display. I suspect FFRF will request a permanent injunction and payment of legal fees, and that will be that.

I'd like to know where was the city attorney in all of this. He's paid to know this kind of stuff. If he told Fouts it's okay, then he's a moron. If he advised Fouts not to do it then Fouts is a moron or a pandering pol [[or both).

**DetroiterOnTheWestCoast** · April-20-14, 08:21 PM

Why can't governments just stick to, oh, it don't know, things like governing and let everyone tend to their religion or lack thereof on their own? Doesn't Warren have better things to do than establishing prayer stations and the like?

**313WX** · April-20-14, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by DetroiterOnTheWestCoast

Why can't governments just stick to, oh, it don't know, things like governing and let everyone tend to their religion or lack thereof on their own? Doesn't Warren have better things to do than establishing prayer stations and the like?

Originally Posted by Don K

I'd like to know where was the city attorney in all of this. He's paid to know this kind of stuff. If he told Fouts it's okay, then he's a moron. If he advised Fouts not to do it then Fouts is a moron or a pandering pol [[or both).

This is the same town that considered banning all pet shops because one owner of one pet store lost his mind, and the same town whose police department thought it was a bright idea to restrain a minority woman from a city they loathe and cut off her weave to show her who was boss, and the same town that thought poaching the world headquarters of a corporation from their neighborhood/region's central city in the middle of their bankruptcy proceeding was a classy thing to do.

Needless to say, I think both of you are giving too much credit...

**nain rouge** · April-20-14, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

It's called punitive damages. In many cases, that's the only inducement to get governments and corporations to change their practices.

I knew that. In this case, I don't agree that punitive damages are appropriate.

But this is Detroit Yes!, where we think we're clever and smart if we debate by acting like anyone that disagrees with us must be disagreeing because they're ignorant of basic concepts.

Guess what? It doesn't make you look smart. It doesn't convince anyone you're right. It's just friggin' annoying. I already got into it with that Bham guy about this very problem.

Find a new shtick.

**Detroitnerd** · April-21-14, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by nain rouge

[/COLOR]
I knew that. In this case, I don't agree that punitive damages are appropriate.

But this is Detroit Yes!, where we think we're clever and smart if we debate by acting like anyone that disagrees with us must be disagreeing because they're ignorant of basic concepts.

Guess what? It doesn't make you look smart. It doesn't convince anyone you're right. It's just friggin' annoying. I already got into it with that Bham guy about this very problem.

Find a new shtick.

Hardly, nain. I think you're totally confused about the tone I took with that message. I saw a documentary about it recently and it kind of opened my eyes to how little most people know about the civil court system, so I'm sharing that.

And if you have real reasons to be opposed to that part of the civil court system, I'd like to hear them.

Trust me, I'm not concerned about appearing smart on an Internet forum. I have a life away from this forum that's challenging and satisfying and I don't really care what people think of me on here. This is a place to have some fun, blow off some steam, have some debates and learn a thing or two.

I've found you to be a good contributor in the past, nain, so it's a little sad to see you jumping off the deep end this morning, but ... maybe once you get more coffee in you you'll see my original tone was neutral enough.

**townonenorth** · April-20-14, 08:51 PM

I think somebody that represents an established religion should set up shop in the Prayer Station. I hear that the tenets of the Pastafarian religion should be good enough to pass muster as a legitimate religion in Warren.

Here's a nice display in Florida's State Capitol. Good enough for the State of Florida, should be good enough for Warren.