Every year, the Pagan Unity Campaign hosts the "I Am" campaign. During this campaign, we ask that people send in postcards (or emails) to elected officials at the local, state and federal levels that say "I am a Pagan/Christian/Muslim _____." Those blanks can be filled with anything from American to voter to student. The list goes on.
On May 23 one of our supporters and state chapter members sent along her "I am a Pagan voter" emails to elected officials. One of those emails was sent to her state representative, Mark Hilton of North Carolina. On June 2nd, he sent along his own one sentence reply.
"Jesus is the only answer."
I can respect that Representative Hilton is a firm believer in Christ and lives by His word. I do not object whatsoever to his religious beliefs or to his right as a private citizen to express those religious beliefs in whatever way he deems necessary. I do, however, object strongly to his reply to this individual as an elected public servant to the great state of North Carolina. Placing his religious beliefs above those of his constituents by saying that his God is the "only" answer is not protected practice in the Constitution of the United States, or in any other legal document in the United States of America.
Ginger Strivelli, our president, sent along a follow up letter to him, making him aware of the fact that his reply was not at all appreciated. His response to her?
"Ginger,
I have never asked anyone who has contacted my office what party they belong to or what religion. This person who sent us an email didn't need or ask anything of our office. She just simply stated that she was a pagan voter. She shared her faith to me which is protected by the constitution and I shared mine back to her which is also protected by the constitution. My response to her should have been no more offensive than her message to me.
Therefore I stand by my faith, Jesus is the only answer.
Mark Hilton"
Apparently, Mr. Hilton is unaware of what exactly constitutes protected speech when acting in an official capacity. Speaking in an official capacity in a way meant to endorse a specific religion or religious viewpoint is forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. Further support of this can be found in the 2004 Supreme Court decision in the San Diego v. John Doe case. In that particular case the Supreme Court found that government employee speech is only protected if it involves "matters concerning government politics that are of interest to the public at large, a subject on which public employees are uniquely qualified to comment" In addition, when "government employees speak or write on their own time on topics unrelated to their employment, the speech can have First Amendment protection, absent some governmental justification 'far stronger than mere speculation' in regulating it" (Hamilton, 2004).
But, don't try to tell him that. He likely won't respond.
Mr. Hilton and those like Mr. Hilton are the exact reason the Pagan Unity Campaign exists. Constituents should feel free to contact officials with their concerns and with their statements without feeling as if their statement of belief is being belittled or demeaned. They do not have that freedom from fear when officials "share" their faith by informing them that the religious answer they know is the "only" answer.
I, for one, am tired of elected officials who know less about the laws and the Constitutions they swore to uphold than do the constituents they are supposed to represent. What Hilton did was illegal and is not acceptable at any level. He really needs to brush up on what is or is not protected speech. If he cannot do the job correctly, he should step down to make room for someone who can do the job.
Reference:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/17/hamilton.first.amendment/index.html
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
1 - Don't vote for him.
2 - If it bothers you enough to make a big deal out of it, contact the ACLU and see if they think his actions represent a constitutional violation.
3 - If "Jesus is the only answer" that this guy can give you, I don't think he really understands the questions.
percivale
-------------------------
The Benoit/Blamey Theory of Thermo-Sock-Dynamics: Why bother to do laundry, when the inevitable loss of a sock will just increase entropy and contribute to the eventual heat death of the universe anyway?
"1 - Don't vote for him."
He's not in my district, but I certainly wouldn't. Quite aside from this I don't agree with him on most of his other positions in regards to gay rights, abortion, etc.
"2 - If it bothers you enough to make a big deal out of it, contact the ACLU and see if they think his actions represent a constitutional violation."
A staffer already sent it over to AU.
"3 - If "Jesus is the only answer" that this guy can give you, I don't think he really understands the questions."
It's not a matter of understanding the question; there was no question, simply a reminder that he represents those from other religions as well. It's a matter of not understand what is or is not acceptable practice as a public servant.
My beef is that he obviously doesn't have a grasp of that and it's ridiculous that we vote clueless people into office and expect them to make good decisions. I know elementary school kids with more common sense and a better grasp of law than those charged with making the laws. It's ridiculous.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
"I won't be your winter. And I won't be anyone's excuse to cry. We can be forgiven. And I will be here." Sister Hazel's "Your Winter"
A staffer already sent it over to AU.
Did anything eer come out of this?
Read my Blogs!
This is Why I'm Hot
ProU Blog
She got a response back from AU, but I can't remember what it entailed. I think it was a basic, you are correct but we have bigger fish to fry at the moment and leave you to it sort of thing. I'll shoot her an email and see if she can refresh my memory.
-----
~Fallon~
An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't- A. France
-----
I love how no one has any respect for other people's beliefs. He can say what he wants, just because he holds a government office doesnt mean he has to censor himself. The Establishment Clause says Congress cannot set up a religon or prohibiting someone elses beliefs. He didn't do that, he told his beliefs and you told yours.
You should read closely before commenting.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
"I won't be your winter. And I won't be anyone's excuse to cry. We can be forgiven. And I will be here." Sister Hazel's "Your Winter"
With all due respect, Fallon, I do not think just saying 'I am...' is going to make a lot of representative understand the purpose behind your campaign. This just makes that more clear.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
I could agree with that, but in this particular instance that's not the case.
In the 7 years that the campaign has been ran, officials at all levels have sent replies. Many of those are along the lines of "Thank you for contacting me with your views. Religious diversity is blah blah blah." If we were only doing the campaign and with no other contact to them, I could agree that they don't get the point. However, staffers consistently communicate with General Assembly members in their states and members of Congress about who we are, what we do, what our campaigns are all about, etc so they aren't scratching their heads, mystified about what the deal is. Mark Hilton was sent that same letter when I took over as regional and was sent a similar introduction by one of the former state chairs. He's also gotten the cards and emails in past campaigns.
Had he not received those communications in the past, I could believe that he didn't know what was going on. But, taking into consideration the previous mailings, one that I sent out myself that detailed the campaign, I don't buy that as an excuse in this instance.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
"I won't be your winter. And I won't be anyone's excuse to cry. We can be forgiven. And I will be here." Sister Hazel's "Your Winter"
Alright, fair enough. He seems to be out of line, then, from what you've said here. Good luck.
~C
Visit my blog: www.progressiveu.org/blog/mvenus929
Read the news: www.progressiveu.org/news
and what is that excuse that he gave?
I believe the following response is appropriate:
Dear sir,
You fail to understands my importance to you as a voter. In the future I, and everyone I know wil vote against you at every chance possible until you are out of office. Since you neither have any concept of your Constitutional duties, nor any respect for your constituents, you are not fit for office.
Sincerely,
[whateverth] District Voter
------------------------------------------------------------
If I had had more time I would have written less. -- Thomas Jefferson
RachelSetzer.com
haha, not voting for people based on their beliefs...yes the smell of hypocrisy. No, don't tell me that this isn't that. Please, the only good this website is starting to do, is make me laugh uncontrollably. But in all seriousness, that guy still has the right to say what he says.
That's a shame.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
"I won't be your winter. And I won't be anyone's excuse to cry. We can be forgiven. And I will be here." Sister Hazel's "Your Winter"
Whats a shame? That you can't respect another religion either, and are a hypocrite? Indeed most of all these my religion is better then yours people are a shame. No you didnt say that, but he is entitled to his opinion just like she is. I feel that if say a buddhist was this Representative and he had said someting like "Nirvana is what you need.", you would probably not have a problem with it. I've noticed that the most vocal are those who don't have respect for all religions. Now if you say that the buddhist could say that, well then your being a hypocrite.
It is a shame that you have decided this site is worth nothing more than comedic relief.
Furthermore, you are overlooking the issue in this particular instance. I don't care if he's Christian, Pagan, Muslim, Buddhist or anything else. That's not the issue here.
Representative Hilton was not contacted as a private citizen, but rather as a public servant. His comment that "Jesus is the only answer" was not given as a private citizen but rather as an elected official. In two recent Supreme Court rulings, San Diego v. John Roe in 2004 and Garcetti v. Ceballos in 2006, SCOTUS held that the First Amendment rights of public servants extend only so far.
"The Supreme Court made clear that government employees do retain First Amendment rights but that they are limited. Government employee speech is protected if it involves "matters concerning government politics that are of interest to the public at large, a subject on which public employees are uniquely qualified to comment." In addition, when "government employees speak or write on their own time on topics unrelated to their employment, the speech can have First Amendment protection, absent some governmental justification 'far stronger than mere speculation' in regulating it" (Hamilton, 2004).
"In a 5-to-4 decision, the court held that public employees' free-speech rights are protected when they speak out as citizens on matters of public concern, but not when they speak out in the course of their official duties" (Stout 2006).
In other words, public servants do retain some First Amendment rights, however, those rights do not encompass speech presented in an official capacity about matters in which you are not qualified to comment. Mark Hilton stepped outside of the strictures put forth by the Supreme Court with his comment as an elected public servant and participated in proselytizing as a public servant and then tried to claim that the speech is protected. It's not and it's ridiculous that people we elect to make law don't even know what the laws are.
Had he been of any other religious background and tried to push his beliefs and then claimed it was protected speech, I'd be just as pissed. Why? Because we elect idiots who don't even know the laws to make the laws.
Calling me a hypocrite without even knowing what the issue is.... that's not a shame, that's ignorance.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
"I won't be your winter. And I won't be anyone's excuse to cry. We can be forgiven. And I will be here." Sister Hazel's "Your Winter"
I totally agree with your logic on how he shouldn't have said "Jesus is the only answer," and about how that isn't really legal, etc. You're completely right with that. I understand that you are a firm believer in tolerance, as am I, but I guess in a slightly different way. I mean, if you're really looking for absolute truth, I think it's important to consider all your options, and once you realize what is really truth, to voice it so that others can know. Ya know? I mean, what if Jesus really is the only answer? Then that would make what he was saying true, and not just a religious belief or opinion - it would be absolute truth. And it would be sad to think that stating absolute truth is illegal in the United States. I mean, I guess it would be the same for any faith. If Islam was the true reality of God/spiritual truth, and a Muslim said something like, "Ala is the only answer," then it would be the same: if this were truth, wouldn't it be unfortunate to not be able to say this in your own country? Anyone who would say this is most likely very sure of their faith being absolutely true. I really do want you to know, though, that I totally respect where you stand as a pagan. It's just a thought.
I guess I don't know if you believe in absolute truth. Maybe you don't. If you don't, then that comment probably doesn't say much to you.
The issue with that argument is, though, that there's no solid empirical or scientific evidence that any religious path is the "absolute right" one. That's why it's called faith.
He has every right to believe that his statement is true. However, he as a Congressman has to understand that not everyone believes the same. That's the whole point of the "I am..." campaign, for the Congresspeople to be reminded that not everyone they represent agree with their, personal, beliefs and that those representing us need to take that into consideration.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"I, for one, am tired of elected officials who know less about the laws and the Constitutions they swore to uphold than do the constituents they are supposed to represent."
Five Stars.