It is a simple concept: the gov't doesn't give any faith a Most Favored Status. None. It doesn't matter if it is Islam, Pagan, Christian or Idol of the Big Oak Tree Out Back. We don't give any faith any special status.
Except for Greene County, MO. Evidently, the 1st & 14th Amendments don't apply there.
Steve Helms is the Green County Circuit Court Clerk. In the lobby of his gov't office, is what he bills as a "patriotic" poster, complete with the American flag & Statue of Liberty. But wait! There's more, Ronco product users! There is also the dedication to the Ten Commandments & to "the one who gave it all for us, Jesus Christ."
According to the News-Leader.com, Helms has declined to remove the poster saying that it reflects the "Judeo-Christian ethics the country was founded" & that the separation of church & state means only the state is to stay out of the church. Helms goes on to say that it is his office & he makes the decisions.
News flash, Mr. Helms. It ain't your office. It belongs to the people of Green County & the Constitution is the law of the land. You don't get to make up rules to suit your faith preference when your office must represent the entire county. As an agent of the state, it is not your call. The Constitution says there is no Most Favored Faith. And just to give some notice, there are no Judeo-Christian principles on which our nation was founded. Our Constitution is an entirely secular document, even being blasted by the state churches of the day as a "Godless Document," complete with calls to reject both Jefferson & Madison in their elections, & have a new Constitution adopted that recognized Christ as Lord. Sorry, Mr. Helms, but that didn't happen & your version of history is a little lacking with facts.
If Mr. Helms wants to decorate his home, his car or any of his personal property, that is his right. More power to him. God bless him & good luck. But when a govt employee is acting on behalf of the state, it is wrong for that agent to show favoritism. It is unconstitutional.
I would suggest Mr. Helms get a very good lawyer who will tell him that he is on very shaky legal ground here & he will simply get back into compliance with the law.
Then again, Helms has said he won't, relying instead on the August 5 vote as a referendum on his office's endorsement of faith.
One way or the other, I don't think Mr. Helms is going to like the outcome. The citizen who formally complained has said he's going to the mat.
Going to be interesting.