My Little City

Villa Park is the smallest city in Orange County with 6200 citizens. In February of 2008, there was a motion by the bible-thumping Jackie Sullivan from Bakersfield to add "In God We Trust" to the back wall of the council chambers. She sent it to all of the Orange County city halls. At the May meeting, myself and 14 others from outline cities spoke against this motion, while 3 people spoke for the motion. The following are some rebuttals and emails I communicated with to the council. In the end, they decided to leave their responsibilities as councilpeople and throw the decision to the citizens, which I find totally irresponsible and lacking the obligation they have to separate church and state. It is a religious motto cleverly disguised as being solely patriotic.

Debra Pauly, City Councilmember who is FOR the IGWT measure You may search Youtube for "Villa Park City Council Meeting IGWT" to see the IGWT discussion.
On November 4, 2008, the citizens of Villa Park overwhelmingly (77%-22%) voted FOR Measure AA. Although a valiant effort was made by myself and another non-believers in the city, our efforts were not good enough.




The May meeting was heated, as the city council was to vote that evening. On this page is a transcript of what I had to say to the council during the previous months..


At the city council meeting 4/22/08
What does the first 10 words of the 1st amendment say? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”
Should I bore you with things that you already know about the separation of church and state? No – I won’t. But I will mention some facts that you might not be aware of:
There is no mention of the word ‘god’ nor ’Christians’ in our constitution, or the 1st amendment, but there are two places where ‘religion’ is mentioned, and there is a very strong NO associated with it.
This motion is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and “excludes people who don’t believe in God.” "In God We Trust" on any government building is in part establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state.
This is simply not how our democracy was designed to function. Part of our federal system is designed to protect minority rights and to prevent any majorityies from discriminating against certain minority classes.
Where any governmental entity displays any religious credo or statement, it demeans those that do not believe in a God or a God named differently – basically making them second class citizens.
I want to widen your view for a moment and look into a hypothetical city of villa park – a mostly Muslim villa park. Now lets look at a Christian person in villa park as a minority coming into this room and seeing “In Allah we trust” or “allah is Great” on your wall behind you. I need go no further with the anger that might ensue. These strong feelings are here right now with myself and many other non-religious persons of our beautiful city.
One of the most important ways the founding founders were influenced by Christianity involved their recognition of need to keep it separate from government. The separation of church and state was designed to protect both from the other's influence. It was their deliberate and controversial decision to establish America as a secular democracy that distinguished our country from most others.
If you believe that our country was designed as a Christian nation, then what if I told you that there is a documnet signed and ratified by ALL or our founding fathers, that reads""As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" would you believe it? Its the Treat of Tripoli from 1796, Artilce 11.
"In God We Trust" was not our motto from the beginning and appeared in conjunction with rising religious sentiment around the Civil War.
Some might claim that this motto has become secular over time, losing its religious significance. Through such reasoning, courts are able to rule that the motto does not violate the separation clause. I would argue that the heart of this claim is absurd on its face and cannot be taken seriously by anyone with a shred of common sense. Since when did god become void of religious significance, and how can anyone reasonably claim that professing trust in some god is not akin to professing belief in said god?
Most Americans do not know that ‘in god we trust’ was not in the pledge of allegiance nor our money before 1955. It was placed there with a motion from a Christian group – the knights of Columbus during the time of communism that was wrongly thought of as atheism, and the mcarthy period.
Yet as many as 15% of American families, or one in seven people, do not hold any religious faith. Despite their lack of religious belief, these people hold and promote ethical values, raise families, hold jobs and pay taxes, and by every other measure participate fully in our communities. Promotion of the IGWT phrase promotes a system of religious apartheid that marginalizes and excludes this 15% of our communities. The message is: Unless you trust in a god, you aren't a real American. Let me suggest that this is not all that different from the "Whites Only" signs that at one time dominated much of American culture. While that, too, was sanctioned by our federal and local governments and considered constitutional, few people today would argue that that was appropriate.
I know it sounds like a good idea at first – unless you do not believe in a God. The motto might even make you personally feel more righteous or emotionally stronger. But simply because a motto has good intentions does not make it right to put in a public space. On closer inspection, its divides our community on religious lines, which I think everyone would agree is a very bad idea indeed.
“In God We Trust” worked well in 1956 for distinguishing ourselves from our atheistic Soviet nemesis, but nowadays our main foreign enemy is a bunch of religious freaks. “In God We Trust” is exactly the kind of thing the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs, and the Al Qaeda fantasists display everywhere; what distinguishes us from them is our secular system of government and our tolerance of diversity.
You, who now sit on our city council, has the opportunity to send a message to all the other cities which has voted yes on this motion, even though many cities received 20 times the emails from their communities that we not in favor of this motion. I hope that your personal beliefs are outweighed by your seat in a governmental office, and the popular vote is not necessarily the right one, as in this case.
There are many great patriotic and secular mottos that can be displayed that everyone would easily agree on. I trust in your intelligence and integrity and hope you to consider the deeper controversial issues around this phrase and instead take the opportunity to adopt a position that can promote the common values and well-being of ALL of our citizens.
IGWT is a statement of religious faith. Belief in faith should be kept at home, in churches and in one’s personal life, not in government.
Thank you for listening


May 08 city council meeting
I heard from several council members and several citizens in favor of the motion that seemed annoyed at the speakers who were living outside this city. Maybe those who feel this way do not recall the ironic fact that it was a religious promoting woman from 280 miles OUTSIDE this city who brought this motion to the attention of our city manager. If you do not respect the opinions of people that took the time and energy to appear before you that are from the immediate surrounding areas, how can you respect a person, 280 miles from our wonderful city, to promote their brand of religion on us?
In response to the late arriving teacher’s emotional comments last month, she said that the ‘evil people’ were trying to take god away from us, and that the GOOD people should not allow this. She said we were not patriotic. These self-righteous comments are ridiculously so far from the truth. She mentioned our founding fathers were Christian. Anyone can google the phrase ‘were our founding fathers religious?’ to easily discover that although they were deists, they were very strongly against religion. Especially Thomas Paine. I’m a little surprised that as a teacher she does not know that this is a constitutional nation, not founded on any religion.
I’d like to correct some misunderstanding of non-believers. Non-believers simply want the same rights as believers - That’s it. It’s a very simple concept. We want believers to have the right to believe in their God just as much as we hope that they will give us our right to believe in no God or in different God. Non-believers universally do not want to change anyone’s opinion or beliefs. We are not evil in any sense of the word. Non-believers are just like everyone else with jobs, morals, families and responsibilities. Just because we believe in a different ideology doesn’t mean we do bad things or are unpatriotic. One of greatest misunderstanding is the idea that if one does not believe in a supreme being, their character or morals are flawed.
It would make me very proud of all of you, if instead, you simply declined to take any action on this issue. In my opinion, this issue should not be considered in any governmental body. It divides believers from unbelievers. Please consider this option tonight.
If you decide not to decline, please consider several another alternatives. You can place 3 mottos on the next ballot instead of one. I would be happy to contribute $500 for my favorite, "The Hidden Jewel" or any other motto that would not have any religion overtones and be acceptable to everyone. Or, Ken can email the city residents a survey for what mottos would be acceptable to our citizens. This would cost nothing and give a good representation of the residences opinions. I’m sure some Christians that strongly believe in the separation of church and state would appreciate these different mottos as much as I do.
Again – no vote need be taken if you only give one choice that will simply be approved from a religious majority. This is not how any system of government body I suppose to work.
Si
Villa Park called, the Villa Park Skeptics Group. We’ll be meeting once a month. If anyone watching would like to attend, email me at [email protected]. (repeat)


5/27/08 at the city council meeing
I heard from several council members and several citizens in favor of the motion that seemed annoyed at the speakers who were living outside this city. Maybe those who feel this way do not recall the ironic fact that it was a religious promoting woman from 280 miles OUTSIDE this city who brought this motion to the attention of our city manager. If you do not respect the opinions of people that took the time and energy to appear before you that are from the immediate surrounding areas, how can you respect a person, 280 miles from our wonderful city, to promote their brand of religion on us?
In response to the late arriving teacher’s emotional comments last month, she said that the ‘evil people’ were trying to take god away from us, and that the GOOD people should not allow this. She said we were not patriotic. These self-righteous comments are ridiculously so far from the truth.
I’d like to correct some misunderstanding of non-believers. Non-believers simply want the same rights as believers - That’s it. It’s a very simple concept. We want believers to have the right to believe in their God just as much as we hope that they will give us our right to believe in no God or in different God. Non-believers universally do not want to change anyone’s opinion or beliefs. We are not evil in any sense of the word. Non-believers are just like everyone else with jobs, morals, families and responsibilities. Just because we believe in a different ideology doesn’t mean we do bad things or are unpatriotic. One of greatest misunderstanding is the idea that if one does not believe in a supreme being, their character or morals are flawed.
She mentioned our founding fathers were Christian. Anyone can google the phrase ‘were our founding fathers religious?’ to easily discover that although they were deists, they were very strongly against religion. Especially Thomas Paine. I’m a little surprised that as a teacher she does not know that this is a constitutional nation, not founded on any religion.
It would make me very proud of all of you, if instead, you simply declined to take any action on this issue. In my opinion, this issue should not be considered in any governmental body. It divides believers from unbelievers. Please consider this option tonight.
If you decide not to decline, please consider several another alternatives. You can place 3 mottos on the next ballot instead of one. I would be happy to contribute $500 for my favorite, "The Hidden Jewel" or any other motto that would not have any religion overtones and be acceptable to everyone. Or, Ken can email the city residents a survey for what mottos would be acceptable to our citizens. This would cost nothing and give a good representation of the residences opinions. I’m sure some Christians that strongly believe in the separation of church and state would appreciate these different mottos as much as I do.
Again – no vote need be taken if you only give one choice that will simply be approved from a religious majority. This is not how any system of government body I suppose to work.


At the June 08 Meeting
Last month, the council voted to give the citizens of villa park the opportunity to vote for the ‘in god we trust’ plaque on the chambers wall in the upcoming the November election. Villa Park will be the first city in California or to my knowledge in the United States to have their citizens vote on a religious matter, the IGWT issue.
Some of you might think I’m a bit eccentric standing up here, arguing against a little sign that MOST everyone wants, but a minority of people don’t want. That’s the most important reason why you should vote NO on this issue. Because if you were the minority forced to see a promotion of religion or even anti-religion, instead of the majority, you to might be up right here next to me. To put it another way – what if the majority were unbelievers and they wanted to place a plaque saying “There is no God” or “We live in a natural world with no supernatural deity controlling us” in the room – my bet is you’d be down here by the hundreds. It’s the same either way. That’s why you should vote against this issue. To keep all religious or non-religious beliefs out of our government, no matter if it’s the city, state, or federal. We all must set a boundary for where religion should be promoted and where it should not be promoted.
Brade Reese, Mayor of VP - and FOR the IGWT measure
Even if you are a God-fearing Christian, please take a look at how our founding fathers embraced the idea of separation of church and state. They were very wise in keeping religion out of government hands, so we could choose our own belief systems
The point is this – that one’s own personal beliefs should be kept at home and church and far away from government. It is the responsibility of our elected officials to not promote any form of religion or anti-religion through government.
You might say – well – What’s really wrong with placing a plaque on the wall with “in god we trust” on it? Well – nothing is wrong with it - if you believe in god or if you do not believe in any church/state separation. . But since 13% of the people in villa park do not believe in a god, and another 8% are agnostic or not religious, is it right to promote a god in a governmental chambers with a plaque?
Take a look at it this way – If Christians were in the minority, and your city let a majority of – lets say – Muslims place a plaque with “Allah is Great” on the wall – how you feel? Probably the same way that 13% of non-believing residences feel here in our Hidden Jewel. This is one very important aspect our government that our founding fathers set up. - to protect the minorities from the majorities. This is another reason to vote no on this issue even if you are in the religious majority.
You may ask – well – majority rules most of the time anyway – so why not now? As on of our council members said last month – “Its appropriate for the majority to sometimes get their way”, which I totally agree with – as long as it is concerning public issues and not religious issues. As soon as you cast the vote to the public for a religious issue, you loose your rights of religion immediately no matter what way you believe. This is why it is wise to vote NO on this issue. To protect your right to believe in any way you see fit without trampling on the rights of other minorities who believe differently – in other words – protect the religious minority from the religious majority.
Our country has more religious freedoms than any other country on the world. Why? Because we have kept religion out of our government. As an non-believer, I want believers to prosper in their religion – and they can because of what I believe is the right thing to do – keep everyone’s religion our of government. I do not want my children influenced by anyone’s religion in our schools – just as a Christian would surely not want a Muslim or atheist to influence their children at school. If you want to have religion in school, enroll your child in a private school where they welcome promoting religion.
I have the right to have the same thing as believers do. I have to right to not believe just as much as believer has the right to believe in their god. This idea must be enforced to maintain a stable government, not influenced by religious dogma, like many other non-democratic countries which we see in this world. And this is why this issue should not be in the voters hands. Why should the majority dictate any motto with the word GOD in it to others that do not believe in said God? Another good reason to vote NO on this issue.
If you are a God-fearing Christian, here’s another way of looking at this issue. One of the Ten Commandments said - you shall not lie. Is condoning something that you know isn’t 100% true lying? If so, voting yes for a plaque that says IGWT, are you really are agreeing with a motto that really means “In God All Of Us Trust”? which is a obvious not true. So as a Christian, would you vote yes and condon a lie? It’s synonymous to vote for a plaque that says “All of us wear clothes” or All of us believe in capitol punishment”. Most everyone would agree that is not accurate – so if you endorse it – are you lying?
I have to think – are the city council members professing their faith indirectly through their actions of deciding governmental issues? Do they need a supreme being to help them make decisions? If so how does their God tell them how to act and decide? And how does said entity communicate? Are the council members hearing directly from God? If so shouldn’t they be in a church as a minister or priest? Are they proving they are good Christians by tossing the vote to an already-decided religious majority? Will their god think of them as better Christians by doing so? Please vote no on this issue – not because you might be a atheist or agnostic, but even a god-fearing Christian should vote no, because you as Christians want to protect EVERYONES right to a free religious community.
A good Christian would reject a sign the says "We Trust In God" for the same reasons a good Caucasian would reject a sign that says, "We Are a White Community."
In closing - my question is this - will you as citizens be politically correct and vote not what you personally believe, but vote to protect the religious rights of everyone in our community. Vote NO next November on the “In God We Trust” motto.


Email to city council members after the meeting, 5/28/08
Last night was a little heated, I might say.
I applaud councilman Rheins for his no vote on the ‘in god we trust’ motion. I’m very happy to see at least one rational-thinking city council member. Freschi – you were almost there. You would have made me very proud if you voted the constitutionally right way. I applaud you for bringing the thoughts of some of our smarter citizens to the chambers.
As for the rest of you, the motion to throw the vote of a religiously-oriented issue to the voters is simply wrong. Voters should be voting on governmental issues, not religious ones. This is a direct violation of the separation of church and state that our country has instituted from the beginning and also what makes our country stong and great. Take a look at other countries that do not have this valuable asset to easily see that we are uniquely a prosperous and free county. I’m sorry to see that your religious views outweigh your responsibilities as council members.
I have no doubt that all of you are God-fearing Christians. And I respect that. But you do not have to prove to the public how devout you are by deciding on a motion that is so pious. I strongly disagree that any religious issue should be decided by a majority vote from the public. If any religious issue went before the California voters or worse yet, the entire country, we would have the second civil war. This is why your four votes were a very bad decision.
Mrs. Pauly. Please educate yourself on our founding fathers. If you Google “were our founding fathers religious”, you will clearly see that they were strongly against exactly what you voted for last night.” You said “our founding fathers turned to the lord” which is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. I’ve included some quotes from our founders at the end of this letter. This is a constitutional nation, not a Christian nation, even though we do have more Christians than any other religion, the government was formed to ignore religious rules and dogma and set forth a guideline for democratic and free thinking.
You also said you are “tired of the minority trying to remove God’s hand from our country” this is not true at all. We un-believers want you to have as much God as you can handle, just not in our government. You also said “it is appropriate for the majority to sometimes get their way” Actually, I agree that the majority should always get their way in all governmental issues, but absolutely not any religious issues. If you think that the majority of religious people should dictate their beliefs to others your are dead wrong and should not be in the seat you now hold. You also said “I am sick and tired of being politically correct”, but isn’t that your responsibility as a council member? Again, you should not be there if you CANNOT be politically correct. Keep your beliefs in your home and in your church, and don’t throw them at me like you have done by giving a religious decision to the majority. You have trampled on my constitutional rights to be free FROM religion, and I will never forgive you of it
Mr Mayor, you asked Mr Rhiens if he “trusted in God” and “do you believe in the United States ?” – Why are you asking this type of question is this governmental office? This is the most idiotic question I have heard from any governmental official even compared to president Bush!! It’s one’s own personal business what they believe in religin, and you have NO RIGHT to ask anyone this question ESPECIALLY during a city council meeting!!! You may pray all you like, but when you enter that room all religious rhetoric should be silent. Keep your mind-numbing religious questions for your church and your home. I respect that you believe in your God, but to bring it/him/her into your council room and relinquish a vote to the citizens, the majority of which are Christian is a demonstration of a weak council. Mr Mayor, you also said “one or two people disapprove” when you know that 13% of us are atheists and another 8-9% are non-believers. That’s amounts to 1100 residents in Villa Park!! You also said the “majority not getting their way”. As stated before, the majority should get their way in public issues, but not religious ones. I DON’T THINK YOU ARE GETTING IT! – We as unbelievers want you to have freedom for any form of religion just as much as we want freedom from religion. It is stupifiably wrong to even think of ‘voting’ for any religious issue. It is wrong for you to allow any religious issue to be voted upon by city citizens. Be as pious as you like, just don;t throu your religious stones at me and the other 1100 residences that probably do not agree with you.
Mr Rheins was the most rational thinker in that room when he said “There needs to be a continued separation of a government entity and a personal belief” and also “I do not think it’s a good idea to bring this issue to this chambers” A wise man indeed. I am proud of you Mr Rheins.
BTW – George Bush said that God ‘told him’ to go to war. Just another example of religion influencing even our highest government officials to justify their decisions. Totally absurd!