NE Mayor Violating First Amendment Tells Atheist ‘Take Me to F*cking Court – I Don’t Care’

Douglas-KindigWhen it comes to religion and government in this country, it should be pretty simple – don’t mix the two.  The separation of church and state shouldn’t be a complicated issue.  Yet we still continually see politicians, especially conservative ones, try to mix religion in with government policies or events.

And by doing so they’re in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Well, in Nebraska, an individual from the group Omaha Atheists expressed concerns over a Memorial Day event titled “Faith and Family” that was sponsored by the city of La Vista.

Group member and La Vista resident Robert Fuller approached La Vista Mayor Douglas Kindig with his business card requesting to discuss his concerns about the event.  Sadly, Kindig apparently wasn’t at all interested in anything Mr. Fuller had to say.

According to Fuller, Mayor Kindig allegedly told him, “Take me to f*cking court because I don’t care.”  Aren’t those some fantastic “Christian values” being put on display from La Vista’s mayor?

But he didn’t stop there.  Kindig allegedly also said, “Minorities are not going to run my city.”

Now what did he mean by that? It’s unclear.  Maybe he meant just a “minority” opinion by an atheist group in a town that’s predominantly Christian.  Maybe he literally meant any kind of minority – who knows.  Either way this was in no way an acceptable response from an elected official.

If the town was indeed sponsoring some kind of religious event for Memorial Day, that’s unconstitutional.  I couldn’t care less what kind of ignorant opinion Mayor Kindig might have about “minorities” or anything else for that matter.  Our First Amendment creates a barrier between church and state.

Meagan Wilson, president of Omaha Atheists, said of Kindig’s alleged comments, “Mr. Kindig’s comments are insulting and dismissive of the rights of citizens to bring concerns to their elected officials.  He clearly has strong opinions about this topic, but we are saddened and concerned that he would rather demand legal action that wastes taxpayer resources than have a respectful conversation.”

See, that’s the problem with these people. They claim they’re “proud Constitutional Americans,” yet they seem to have absolutely no trouble violating our Constitution whenever it doesn’t correspond with something they think should be legal.

It’s the conservative way, I guess.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Ellen H.

    I wonder if the esteemed mayor can see the irony in his statements and attitude? Probably not since people like him must feel the need to make everyone like him since it’s obvious he is insecure in his beliefs.

    • nick

      Go get a job

      • Ellen H.

        OMG! I just don’t think I’ve ever received such a well thought out argument. I have a job and have had it since the fall of 1985. There is a thing called vacation time. But I guess you might not know about that.

  • LoverofLife

    1) Verbal quell – it is never acceptable to be met by a politician (or anyone really) with foul language and a sharp negative dismissive tone;
    2) Anger – projecting anger at someone asking a question demonstrates a lack of intellect and social outreach on the judge’s part;
    3) Bigotry – attitude against a minority by an elected official is not acceptable;
    4) UnChristian behavior – ironically attempting to defend his Christian honor, he undermine’s his own virtues and reputation by engaging in (far) less than Christian behavior
    5) Unapproachable – challenging someone to the degree of daring them to take him to court is precisely the attitude problem we have with many people, including elected officials; it’s the high and mighty attitude of believing “I’m right – they are wrong. There is no middle ground. I refuse to hear them out.” That disables the human spirit, decency and engagement. Everything that goes against what a government official should stand for.
    6) Unapologetic – the apology was no apology; instead he should have said “I apologize for my behavior” and not “I apologize for your reaction.”
    And this attitude is culturally pervasive, which only makes it worse.

    • robingee

      Yeah, way to have a dialogue with your constituents. “Screw you, I do what I want.” Nice.

    • Paul Julian Gould

      Indeed. The only acceptable apology (and I’ve given a few in my long years for good reason) is, “I’m sorry. I screwed up, it was wrong, and I’ll try not to do that again.”

      Anything else is a string of weasel-words.

      • mikeatle

        I have now incorporated “weasel-words” into my vocabulary! Thank you so much!

      • Paul Julian Gould

        One of those cool phrases that I wish I would have been the one to come up with… It’s been around for 20 years at least, but glad to pass the knowledge on! /*grin*/

      • nick

        He should not apologies to the atheist. He should off minded himself and stop imposing his views on others. And as for me I don’t know if I believe or don’t but sick of these politically correct dumb atheist. ..

      • Paul Julian Gould

        Hmmm… well, I’m not an atheist, dumb or otherwise, but it seems to me that if one is so minded as to refer to others as “dumb,” it might be wise to invest a moment or so in a spell- and grammar-check… Just a suggestion.

  • fingerplucker

    You would have to go to La Vista to understand. smh.

    • Jennifer Lynn

      You’re right Fingerplucker. I’ve only been there a few times. I’m not in a hurry to go back. Lincoln is bad enough! (Calgon take me away!)

  • FD Brian

    What would you expect from a state that is going to elect a Tea Bagger to the Senate.

    • Dean

      Tea Baggers are fighting to try and save some of your freedoms before they are all gone. Open your eyes.

      • FD Brian

        I have all my freedoms intact, I’m not sure what you feel so oppressed about. Maybe you would care to share.

  • Richard Verdejo

    My understanding of the 1st Amendment: “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights”
    Now the operative word here is ESTABLISHMENT of religion – in other words, passing a law that SPECIFIES a particular religion or religious practices.

    I fail to see how an event ‘sponsored’ by the city titled “Fait and Families” constitutes a 1st Amendment violation…unless the sole basis is that public monies were used as part of the sponsorship (gonna happen at ANY EVENT since public safety and subsequent clean-ups ARE done via public monies.
    Granted, the Mayor’s “response” to the quesry was way out of line and probably would’ve garnered an ass kicking from me (as my right of Freedom of expression), but I would not see this instance as a broadbrush pic of Conservatives (which most present day Goopers are not), nor of Christians (many who are just “posers”)

    • Edward Krebbs

      Like I said in my previous post on this, the “Faith and Family” might in itself pass under a technicality (with heavy emphasis on the word Technicality).

      However, if it receives funding or in-kind donations from any govt group (including the city) and it does anything to favor one religious group or limit participation from another group, then it becomes the establishment of religion. Should that become the case, as another poster points out, the cash register for the court and attorney fees will start ringing as the good people of the town will be forced to pay both for attorneys to protect the city/mayor as well as probably the courts declaring that they have to pay for the cost of those suing the city.

    • James Wood

      Please explain the mechanism that includes each and every possible religion in the world as well as those with no religion when promoting religion.
      The fact that this cannot be done was addressed clearly in every ruling on the topic- you cannot promote ANY religion, because you cannot do so and promote all equally.

  • Fernando

    Many people ‘claim to have “religious beliefs”, but open their mouths and out comes satanic isms’ Typical of the current extremists that call themselves ‘republicans’

    • Janni Rose

      Pardon me Fernando – Satanism is also a religion.

  • DavidD

    Most conservatives have more sense to paint a target on their butt and then hand someone a bb gun.
    This going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money just so a self entitled idiot can profit politically using public funds to do so.
    How is this fisical coservatitism? I thought minding one’s own business and living one’s private life according to one’s private belief and not involving the state was being conservative.
    This guy is a stone cold reactionary activist not conserving anything.

    • Jon Quest

      By your own definition only. Get a life and grow up!

      • DavidD

        I’ve retired to a very nice life and at 6’8″ I have enough trouble getting clothes now.Do you know where I can get some nice size 18 shoes?I don’t need to grow up but shrink down.
        Do you want to contest my observation that it is going to cost money to hire lawyers or do you want to make nonsensical assertions and shout insults?
        Since you didn’t really try I guess the latter.

  • Edward Krebbs

    On a technicality (with very heavy emphasis on the word technicality), “Faith and Family” in itself doesn’t proclaim a particular faith – of which even atheism could be considered part of the group.

    However, I readily admit that on looking deeper I would expect to find that the festivities did indeed plan a particular group of faiths as well as racial group (WASP). And, like many small town fiefdoms, the mayor definitely shows that he is totally unsuited to deal with issues on behalf of the people.

    • robinlauderdale

      You would be right, Edward. It was sponsored by a group of christian churches in the area. Had it been an interfaith service, with representatives of the local churches, along with the local Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other denominations, then it would have been less offensive.

      • E0h8r

        then it would have been a terrorist plot.

  • Dave

    And they will re-elect him! Your argument is invalid.

    • Jennifer Lynn

      That would prove the point Dave! This state is full of people so idiotic about religion that the only country they’d be comfortable with the rules is Iran!!!! Trust me, I LIVE HERE!!!! (Beam me up Scotty!. There’s no intelligent life here!)

  • Sally Johnson

    Yeah, they want the government out of their lives, except if that government supports, appears to support, or can be made to support their belief that everything you need to know you can learn from the best guesses of Bronze Age nomads.

  • EOH8r

    Fckin Minorities… they ruin it for all of us.

  • ginger

    Since atheists don’t believe in God. why are they concerned with those who do?? Atheists need to mind their own business and leave those who have faith alone. The atheists just want control..

    • Paul Julian Gould

      I don’t know if you’re quite aware of the subject of the original post, but the comments with which folks are taking issue were made by an elected official, in the capacity of his job, which is to be a mayor for all the citizens of his town, not just the ones with whom he attends church.