My interview with Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation is available here. I think she makes a strong case that the Marshfield and LaCrosse situations would serve as precedent for a legal struggle over the angel in the park.
I really can't understand why the city would want to be embroiled in a court struggle over this issue. Even if the city were to win the lawsuit, which does not seem likely given Marshfield and LaCrosse, it would be a pyrrhic victory. The bitter divisiveness that accompanies these kinds of struggles most assuredly does not benefit grieving parents. Just as important is the fact that a victory in this case would make it next to impossible for the city to turn down a request from any organization willing to raise the money to place their memorial statue in the park. Can you imagine the legal battle that would follow when the city tries to say no to an organization after accepting the angel?
I'm also not comfortable with the idea that's been thrown out of using private funds to pay for a lawsuit against the city of Oshkosh. We have an at-large council that supposedly represents all of us. If they are confident that the city's position is right and just, then they should use taxpayer money to support it. If they are not confident in the position, then they should try to resolve this matter out of court.
More than that, let's remember the big picture here. There are, sadly, too many parents who are grieving the loss of children. Many of them are not only grieving the loss, but are at or near bankruptcy because of medical bills and other costs associated with caring for their loved ones. I'd urge people considering contributions to a legal fund to instead think about contributing to or starting a charity for grieving parents in poverty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Paul Esslinger mentioned this private fund briefly during the debate. I have not heard anything about this and aren't sure what he is referring to.
At any rate, Tony is right that private funds should not be used to defend the city's decision. It was not done that way when the city defended the smoking ban issue and why should this be any different.
But Paul's attitude about this and his and Bill Castle's line drawn in the sand are not marks of true leadership. They can not see the big picture here nor do they want to. So we once again are seeing is a city council displaying a superior attitude. Those are the very attitudes that will land the city in court.
If private funds do get used for this, we should see if we can't also find private funds or an organization to sue the city over bid waiving and secret meetings.
Esslinger seems to have the same viewpoint on both the smoking and angel issues.
He takes a position that is common but always confuses me. In both cases a group of people have said "Those people over there are engaging in behavior that is interfering with my ability to control my own life choices. We'd like them to stop".
Smoking - chemicals into the body involuntarily.
Religion - ideas in to the mind involuntarily.
Esslinger seems only to percieve that the non-smokers and church/state separatists are asking for a change in the smoker's/proselytizer's behavior.
This change is only asked for in self-defense, however he reframes it as if it were and act of aggression. Now in Esslinger's view, the smoker's and proselytizers are "persecuted" and THEIR rights are in need of protection. Completely ignoring that those "rights' invade other people's personal boundaries.
An attitude like that makes rudeness and insensitivity the qualities that are protected by government, not civility and consideration.
Good thing he's not involved with a domestic abuse shelter - with that mind set he would be defending the abuser's right to "express their feelings" rather than their target's rights to live without fear and pain.
To anonymous at 6:28pm
WHAT??????
Anonymouse 6:28, you have hit the nail on the head about Esslinger's attitudes. He refuses to see anyone's opinion but his own, not even a little bit, which allows no room for give and take. It has become a shame. Once upon a time he had promise. Now it's only about Paul and whatever Paul or his supporters want. That's no way to run a city.
Paul Esslinger has no comprehension of compromise and he is clueless about what things are "pertinent or for the good of the city". If he did he wouldn't be leading us into court.
Paul Esslinger and Bill Castle are only 2 votes on the council. I would hope the others would have more sense than these 2 clowns and help mediate this situation before we get sued.
Esslinger continues to mount a defense for his bullheadedness. Watch the replay of the council meeting where he's asking questions of Warren Kraft about the money for the defense of the city in a lawsuit. So what that it comes from insurance? We pay the premiums and it could easily exceed the $50,000 from insurance. This guy is a fool.
Post a Comment