Don Wessels, Jr., Past President, AU-Hawaii, Responds to Representative Rath

Letter to the Editor, sent to Star Bulletin on June 26, 2001

We as individuals have, at least theoretically, the right under the US Constitution to speak our mind about what we believe.

Posting symbols of religious belief is an easy socio-political statement about what you want people to believe that you stand for. Mr. Rath wants to paint a "warm fuzzy feeling" of being a member of the majority religion of our society. He knows that by placing a religiously correct, namely a Christian symbol, on the office door of the buys him browny points with his constituency that elected him.

Now if his religious convictions where, lets say, Islamic would he readily advertise his affiliation to this "minority" religious belief on the his door. I do not think he would. I don't think you could find anywhere in the U.S., an elected official who professes, even privately, being an Islamic fundamentalist. Being a Islamic fundamentalist in the US today is political suicide. That person who would in all probability never get close to getting elected much less get the chance to place Islamic symbols on the entrance of our Government's offices.

The symbol on Mr. Rath's door to me it is a billboard for political advertisement attesting to his religious correctness and therefore his electability. The symbol is not so much an aid for religious meditation for himself but a message to the voters of his district that he is Christian just like most of them. The symbol saves him from the time and potential political conflict with his constituency that could result if he really had to spell out the details of his religious and moral convictions.

Of course everyone can and should speak up for their convictions in all that they do and I would fight and die to defend their right to do so.

The symbols of religion are profoundly broad and deeply significant expression of personal religious conviction. The placing of religious symbols viewable within the hallways of a building both symbolically and a literal representation of the US Government is illegal. It establishes a legal precedent that gives respect to one religion over all others.

Mr Rath calls for us to "lighten up." Mr Rath you are breaking the law of the land. The implications of your religious "advertising" posted on our Government's property has profound and far-reaching political, philosophical, and historic significance. The reason the people of South Kohala-North Kona don't have you thrown out of office for this illegal act is because the people who elected you are for the most part Christian too.

Out of their deep sectarian convictions and the love they have for the beliefs that your fish symbol represents to them, they see no harm in it.

But, the First Amendment was penned and adopted as a part of the U.S. Constitution by those who experienced, first hand, the bloodshed and tyranny of religious organizations established by the power of government.

You and others like you are setting a dangerous legal precedent that is fundamentally damaging to our freedoms.

The First Amendment is the "Keystone" to our freedoms it is clearly designed to keep Government power and religious organizations apart for the betterment of both. Their are good and deadly serious reasons why freedom of speech and the prohibiting the establishment of a State religion are expressed in the same amendment.

End the threat that your illegal activity represents and remove your sectarian "advertisement" from our non-sectarian Government's property.

Mahalo Nui Loa,

Donald Wessels, past President, Americans United Hawaii Chapter
28-2926 Kumula Street, Pepeekeo, Hawaii 96783 Ph: 808.964.3013

 

Kahle Responds to Representative Rath:

Letter to the Editor, sent to Star Bulletin on June 21, 2001 by AU-Hawaii member, Mitch Kahle

I must give Representative Jim Rath credit; at least he is attempting to understand state-church separation (Star Bulletin, Gathering Places, June 21).

I agree that everyone should have religious freedom, free
speech, free thought, and so on.

But Rath misses then point when it comes to government entanglements with religious activity or special preferences for one religion over others.

When Rep. Stonebraker used public funds to promote his personal religious activity, all taxpayers were thus forced to support that particular religion.

When St. Jude's church erected its 25-foot-tall cross in view of the general public to attract attention, the symbol became a sign as defined by law. All signs are subject to content-neutral regulations that limit the size and height. These "uniform" ordinances must apply equally to all individuals and groups.

Churches may put up crosses (as long as they aren't too large) and legislators may actively participate in religious services (as long as they don't use taxpayer-funded resources). It's that simple.

Religion enjoys special protections from government and it is therefore subject to special restrictions. It has nothing to do with "tolerance".

Rath states that: "Our Constitution assures freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." He is wrong; for without freedom from
religion, there can be no freedom of religion.

Mitchell Kahle, Member AU-Hawaii and Chair, Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church

 

AU Member Richard Uejo Awarded Prestigious Living Treasures award: Today's Hawaii Tribune Hearld, page 12, ran a photo and article about AU Hawaii Chapter member Rev. Richard Uejo who was presented the prestigious Living Treasures Award at a surprise ceremony at the Kilauea Military Camp Chapel where Uejo worked as the unpaid volunteer chaplain for 40 years. William Ritter of Volcano made the presentation on behalf of Santa Fe, New Mexico organization that makes the awards. Uejo was also cited for his work in creating the Big Island after-school care, senior adult-care and drug and alcohol-abuse programs and many other decades of community service activities as well as his key role in organizing the annual Mayor's breafast that our local chapter attended last month.

 

 

This editorial by Hawaii's only afternoon statewide daily newspaper lends some perspective to the current controversy noted in earlier postings here and at our main web site:

Honolulu Star Bulletin Editorial Thursday, June 7, 2001

Sign permits challenge city’s application of state-church separation

The issue: A city agency and a state legislator face allegations that they have
risked violating the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

IN writing the First Amendment, our founding fathers left a hazy area between forbidding government establishment of religion and protecting religious freedom. More than two centuries later, government officials still are puzzled. City officials have obligingly opened a Pandora's box by indicating it will approve the placement on church property of a cross taller than city regulations allow for commercial signs.

Meanwhile, a state legislator has been targeted with overblown charges by a separation-of-church-and-state activist that he acted improperly when informing Kaiser High School students of a baccalaureate service.

The 20-foot-high cross was planted next to St. Jude Catholic Church near the the H-1 freeway's Makakilo-Kapolei off-ramp. Randall Fujiki, director of the city Planning and Permitting Department has indicated the cross will be allowed to stand because it is not a commercial sign.

If that is true, Fujiki also must approve applications by Michael Golojuch Jr. to post two intersecting circles containing diagonally upward arrows near his Makakilo townhouse to proclaim his homosexuality, and by Andrew Crothier to erect a pentagram on his Manoa property as a symbol of Satanism. The two men obviously submitted their applications to place Fujiki in a tough spot, which he created for himself and perhaps the City Council.

The city is left with the choice of approving or rejecting all three applications, or it will be inviting lawsuits that it will stand little chance of winning. (The American Civil Liberties Union is watching.) The Council should decide whether noncommercial signs should be assigned the same standards that apply to commercial ones.

Meanwhile, freshman Rep. William Stonebraker, who is Kaiser High's wrestling coach and an associate pastor at Calvary Church, has been accused of crossing the wall between church and state by sending letters inviting graduating seniors to baccalaureate services. Stonebreaker (R, Hawaii Kai) says he did not use state supplies or postage for the mailing. He also was accused of improperly holding a prayer meeting at the Capitol.

The Supreme Court repeatedly has disapproved only of governmental actions that foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." It has allowed chaplains to lead legislators in prayer because of the "unambiguous and unbroken history of more than 200 years." The court could hardly be expected to disapprove of a single legislator's invitation to any religious gathering as a governmental establishment of religion, and the state Ethics Commission should dismiss the complaint alleging impropriety. # # #

 

Rep. Stonebaker and Kahle at it again: Today's Star Bulletin reports that Mitch Kahle has filed a complaint against Rep. Stonebaker for using public funds to promote religion. As noted earlier, AU-Hawaii is in the process of setting up a chapter on Oahu and is not affiliated with Mr. Kahle's efforts and thus cannot comment or verify his activities.