Tag: 1st amendment

Posted on

Group Discussion Guideline Reminder

The fol­low­ing group dis­cus­sion guide­lines were cre­at­ed when SHoWLE was cre­at­ed back in 2018. We thought it was a great time — espe­cial­ly with what is going on in the world con­cern­ing free speech — to remind peo­ple about them. These guide­lines are avail­able on the Things to know about SHoWLE page

We intend to fos­ter a mem­ber­ship that is curi­ous about the world and who want to explore human solu­tions to human prob­lems with­out regard to any spe­cif­ic world view or pol­i­tics. We want to cre­ate a space that is open and hon­est about these top­ics and ideas. To that end, here are some gen­er­al best prac­tices to be used dur­ing group dis­cus­sions or “Question & Answer” peri­ods after a speak­er.

1. Discussions will be mod­er­at­ed by an offi­cer or vol­un­teer. Please raise a hand when you want to speak and allow the speak­er to fin­ish what they have to say before ask­ing to speak. The mod­er­a­tor will have the pow­er to stop a speak­er and move to the next speak­er if peo­ple are wait­ing to speak.

2. Please stay on top­ic and be as brief as pos­si­ble in mak­ing your point. Be con­sid­er­ate of oth­ers who might be wait­ing to speak. If you want to pon­tif­i­cate on a top­ic, save it for your blog or pod­cast.

3. Remember – Treat all with basic dig­ni­ty and worth even those you dis­agree with. “Attack” the idea and NOT the per­son. Name call­ing, bul­ly­ing, or harass­ment of any­one will NOT be tol­er­at­ed. Punishment for doing it may include being asked to leave the meet­ing or event and could lead to your removal as a mem­ber of the group.

*Note* Critical exam­i­na­tion of beliefs, includ­ing crit­i­cal com­men­tary on anoth­er per­son­’s views, does not, by itself, con­sti­tute bul­ly­ing or harass­ment.

4. Because we are a non-profit group we will not and can­not endorse can­di­dates for polit­i­cal office. We can advo­cate for issues such as civ­il rights, keep­ing abor­tion legal and safe, and the need for a strong and ratio­nal pub­lic edu­ca­tion sys­tem for exam­ple. Members can wear polit­i­cal shirts and but­tons at meet­ings and events. Members can also ask for peti­tion sig­na­tures but please do that before or after a meet­ing.

5.  Although all top­ics and ideas are open for dis­cus­sion at a meet­ing, there is one top­ic we won’t be dis­cussing. SHoWLE is a human­ist group and many of us are human­ists because we came to a rea­son­able con­clu­sion on the exis­tence of “god” ques­tion. Arguing reli­gious points or apolo­get­ics won’t be wel­come.  Also com­ments that unnec­es­sar­i­ly dis­par­age reli­gion are sim­ply bor­ing to those of us who have moved to sec­u­lar human­ism and won’t be wel­come.

Comments that attempt to den­i­grate whole groups of peo­ple also aren’t wel­come. We are inter­est­ed in solv­ing prob­lems not scape­goat­ing.

6. While we do want to have frank and hon­est dis­cus­sions, we acknowl­edge that in some cas­es a dis­cus­sion or top­ic will be trig­ger­ing or uncom­fort­able. We try to be clear on what the top­ic of dis­cus­sion will be and you can always reach out and ask ques­tions about it. It may hap­pen that you attend the main part of the meet­ing but don’t wish to stay for the dis­cus­sion and leav­ing at that point is up to you. The only sub­jects we will not dis­cuss are the top­ics men­tioned else­where in this doc­u­ment — Arguing reli­gious points or apolo­get­ics or com­ments that attempt to den­i­grate whole groups of peo­ple — for exam­ple.

7. If a dis­cus­sion par­tic­i­pant offends you please lim­it crit­i­cism dur­ing your turn to talk and address your con­cern not the per­son who made the com­ments and remem­ber guide­line num­ber 3 above.

8. There will not be a right to speak with­out con­se­quences. Humanists believe all ideas are open to ques­tion includ­ing our own. There is a pos­si­bil­i­ty we are wrong.

Posted on

SHoWLE To Move Away From Facebook

Facebook logo

Starting on February 1st, 2025, SHoWLE will reduce our use of Facebook. We will put in a sta­t­ic post point­ing vis­i­tors to our web­site but we will not update our pub­lic page, boost any posts, or cre­ate any new events.

We don’t make this deci­sion eas­i­ly but the change in polit­i­cal views of the CEO and oth­er actions tak­en by Meta, the own­er of Facebook, make our con­tin­ued use of the plat­form prob­lem­at­ic. If you are not aware of these issues check out the links at the end of this post for some details. In gen­er­al:

  • Donated $1 mil­lion to Trump’s inau­gur­al fund, while Zuckerberg dined with Trump at Mar-A-Lago
  • Ended its fact-checking pro­gram to cater to the right-wing
  • Relaxed its rules on hate speech to allow hate­ful rhetoric against LGBTQ peo­ple, includ­ing as part of “reli­gious dis­course”
  • Deleted Facebook Messenger themes that used the col­ors of the trans­gen­der and bina­ry flags
  • Ended its DEI work and elim­i­nat­ed its chief diver­si­ty offi­cer posi­tion
  • Called for com­pa­nies to dis­play more “mas­cu­line ener­gy” (Zuckerberg) despite the over­whelm­ing dom­i­nance of men in the tech indus­try.

The fact-checking mod­er­a­tion was put into place a decade ago because Facebook was used to facil­i­tate eth­nic cleans­ing in a cou­ple of coun­tries. Not to men­tion now there will be more irra­tional posts about the harm of vac­cines and oth­er pro­mo­tion of woo.

We will keep our pri­vate group page for now but we intend to pro­mote a more open com­mu­ni­ty forum in the future off Facebook.

We rec­om­mend that our mem­bers also move away from Facebook but that deci­sion should be left up to each indi­vid­ual. In the links below is an arti­cle from EFF.org that shows how to block use of your data for prof­it mak­ing by Meta.

If you have any ques­tions about this new pol­i­cy, feel free to reach out to Doug or oth­er Board mem­bers.

For further information:

Meta ends its DEI pro­grams as Zuckerberg blasts Biden on Joe Rogan

Mark Zuckerberg Preps for More Ethnic Cleansing

Mad at Meta? Don’t Let Them Collect and Monetize Your Personal Data

You can also find us on Bluesky as Toledo Humanist Community

Posted on

Do We Really Need To Teach Young Kids About Human Sacrifice?

Public schools all over the coun­try and espe­cial­ly in Ohio are being invad­ed by a Christian Nationalist group called LifeWise. They claim to be teach­ing char­ac­ter val­ues using Bible sto­ries but in review­ing some of these Bible sto­ries, we have to ask, Do we want to be teach­ing young kids about Human sac­ri­fice for exam­ple?

LifeWise sets up in a local school dis­trict and with parental per­mis­sion take kids off-campus for some Bible learn­ing dis­guised as Character and val­ue edu­ca­tion. They refuse to let the pub­lic review their cur­ricu­lum and is in fact suing some­one who legal­ly obtained a copy and post­ed it online.

Maybe this is why LifeWise refus­es to let peo­ple out­side of LifeWise see their cur­ricu­lum:

In the Elementary cur­ricu­lum, that is not­ed for Kindergarten through 3rd grade, Lesson 8 is about the char­ac­ter trait “sac­ri­fice”. One seg­ment of the les­son talks about God test­ing Abraham. For those who don’t know the sto­ry, God tells Abraham to take his son up into the moun­tain and sac­ri­fice him to show his loy­al­ty to God.

God wants Abraham to mur­der his own son to show much he “loves” God.

Abraham does what God says and takes his son up the moun­tain, builds an alter, and is just about ready to do the deed and an Angel stops him and lets him know that since he was ready to mur­der Isaac he knew he feared God (ie. would do what God Wanted).

Side note: Isaac had no clue his father was pre­pared to mur­der him.

So, not only is LifeWise teach­ing lit­tle kids that human sac­ri­fice can be a good thing as long as it is for God, here is this tid­bit

Example of a LifeWise Lesson about Human Sacrifice

The les­son is to have 2nd and 3rd graders act out the Abraham sto­ry and for the oth­er kids to pro­vide sound effects. Have the kids act out human sac­ri­fice for God? Some kids have issues with what is real and what is not so should we be teach­ing this par­tic­u­lar sto­ry? We don’t think so.

That isn’t the only prob­lem­at­ic sto­ry. Here is a les­son about the trait sub­mis­sion:

Submission means learn­ing to be a good fol­low­er. Instead of doing our own thing, we can do what we are asked. We don’t talk back or demand our way. We choose to “fol­low the leader,” whether that is God, our par­ents, our teach­ers or oth­er good author­i­ties God puts in our lives.

LifeWise Lesson Example

In an iron­ic twist, the title of the les­son is “Jacob’s New Name” and some of the activ­i­ties are kids choos­ing a new name as a game. Yet, Joel Penton, the founder of LifeWise is against kids choos­ing their own name to social­ly tran­si­tion at school. Also LifeWise train­ing doc­u­ments make clear that the order of author­i­ty for chil­dren is God then their Parents.

If this was a sec­u­lar les­son about sub­mis­sion (it would­n’t be called that in the first place), the teacher would also talk about caveats like are you being hurt or ‘has an adult asked you to keep a secret.’ Unlike this Bible sto­ry we don’t teach kids to nev­er ques­tion why an adult or par­ent is ask­ing them to do some­thing. There will be things a kid must do that they don’t want to do — like their home­work or mow­ing the yard, but typ­i­cal­ly they need to “sub­mit” as long as it won’t hurt them in some way that typ­i­cal­ly is ille­gal if uncov­ered.

And what if a child actu­al­ly mur­ders their class­mate and they say they did it because God told them to do it?

LifeWise does­n’t have an answer for that.

If you are inter­est­ed in more infor­ma­tion about the prob­lems with LifeWise, check out our recent episode of Glass City Humanist.

Click on the image for link
Posted on

SHoWLE Disappointed By 303 Creative Court Decision

Toledo, July 1, 2023 — The Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie are very dis­ap­point­ed in the rul­ing on June 30 by the US Supreme Court in the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case. It is wrong that reli­gious beliefs now trump all oth­er rights to full pub­lic busi­ness accom­mo­da­tions and allow dis­crim­i­na­tion of peo­ple in a pro­tect­ed class.

The court said that requir­ing the graph­ic design­er to make wed­ding web­sites for same-sex cou­ples was an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al vio­la­tion of her first amend­ment rights because the cre­ation would be seen as an endorse­ment of some­thing her reli­gious beliefs pro­hib­it.

We don’t believe requir­ing busi­ness own­ers not to dis­crim­i­nate against cus­tomers in pro­tect­ed class­es makes the per­son or busi­ness endorse some­thing against their reli­gious beliefs. At the end of the day they can still not approve of same-sex mar­riages. If a busi­ness can’t bring itself to serve cus­tomers from the pro­tect­ed class­es then they need not be a pub­lic busi­ness.

We are also con­cerned about the unprece­dent­ed pro­tec­tion the court grant­ed to a reli­gious per­son. They ruled on a case that did­n’t include any actu­al harm. The plain­tiff was­n’t cre­at­ing wed­ding web­sites when she filed the law­suit and there is some ques­tion that the LGBT cus­tomer writ­ten about in her case was made up. Secular peo­ple who claim their reli­gious free­dom was vio­lat­ed, like for exam­ple chal­leng­ing 10 Commandment stat­ues on court house lawns, are dis­missed because the mere pres­ence of the reli­gious item or text isn’t an actu­al harm accord­ing to fed­er­al courts.

The plain­tiff agreed in court that she would sell her ser­vices to LGBTQ peo­ple, just not wed­ding web­site designs. So her reli­gious beliefs are not absolute. How does mak­ing a sign for a gay man not also seem to endorse his sex­u­al ori­en­ta­tion?

The deci­sion was capri­cious and arbi­trary and gave spe­cial rights to reli­gious peo­ple that are not allowed by any­one else. The Christian Nationalists have been bent on sub­vert­ing decades of church and state legal deci­sions.

The US Supreme Court set back reli­gious free­dom for many years.

For fur­ther infor­ma­tion on this deci­sion see: Supreme Court rules web­site design­er can decline to cre­ate same-sex wed­ding web­sites

Supreme Court rules web­site design­er can decline to cre­ate same-sex wed­ding web­sites

About Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie

The mis­sion of the Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie is to pro­vide a sup­port­ive local com­mu­ni­ty for human­ists and oth­er non­the­ists, while pro­mot­ing an eth­i­cal, rea­son­able, and sec­u­lar approach to life through edu­ca­tion, com­mu­ni­ty ser­vice, out­reach, activism, and social events.

We envi­sion a Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan where sec­u­lar peo­ple are respect­ed and inte­grat­ed in broad­er soci­ety, live val­ues of rea­son and com­pas­sion, and enjoy a friend­ly human­ist com­mu­ni­ty.

#

PDF of Statement Available Here

Posted on

SHoWLE Asks Local Media To Stop Running False Anti-Abortion Ad

The Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie are ask­ing local media in Northwest Ohio to stop air­ing the TV ad by the anti-abortion group “Protect Women Ohio” because it is a false ad.

In that ad that began air­ing March 15th, a nar­ra­tor speaks:

“Your daugh­ter is young vul­ner­a­ble online. You fear the worst. Pushed to change her sex or to get an abor­tion. You have some right to help her through this but activists want to take all that away. Under their pro­posed amend­ment to the Ohio. Constitution the state shall not inter­fere with indi­vid­u­als get­ting abor­tions or sex changes mean­ing you could be cut out of the Biggest deci­sion of her life.”

Audio of Protect Women Ohio: Fear the Worst 3/15/2023

Forcing daugh­ters to get sex changes or abor­tions appears no where in the actu­al text of the pro­posed amend­ment.

FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio that Article I of the Ohio Constitution is amend­ed to add the fol­low­ing Section:

Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety

A. Every indi­vid­ual has a right to make and car­ry out one’s own repro­duc­tive deci­sions, includ­ing but not lim­it­ed to deci­sions on:

con­tra­cep­tion;
fer­til­i­ty treat­ment;
con­tin­u­ing one’s own preg­nan­cy;
mis­car­riage care;
and abor­tion.

B. The State shall not, direct­ly or indi­rect­ly, bur­den, penal­ize, pro­hib­it, inter­fere with, or dis­crim­i­nate against either:

An indi­vid­u­al’s vol­un­tary exer­cise of this right or
A per­son or enti­ty that assists an indi­vid­ual exer­cis­ing this right, unless the State demon­strates that it is using the least restric­tive means to advance the indi­vid­u­al’s health in accor­dance with wide­ly accept­ed and evidence-based stan­dards of care.
However, abor­tion may be pro­hib­it­ed after fetal via­bil­i­ty. But in no case may such an abor­tion be pro­hib­it­ed if in the pro­fes­sion­al judg­ment of the preg­nant patien­t’s treat­ing physi­cian it is nec­es­sary to pro­tect the preg­nant patien­t’s life or health.

C. As used in this Section:

“Fetal via­bil­i­ty” means “the point in a preg­nan­cy when, in the pro­fes­sion­al judg­ment of the preg­nant patien­t’s treat­ing physi­cian, the fetus has a sig­nif­i­cant like­li­hood of sur­vival out­side the uterus with rea­son­able mea­sures. This is deter­mined on a case-by-case basis.”
“State” includes any gov­ern­men­tal enti­ty and any polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sion.

D. This Section is self-executing.

Text of pro­posed amend­ment as approved by Ohio bal­lot board March 2023

Sex reas­sign­ment surgery is not men­tioned at all. The pro­posed amend­ment only cov­ers indi­vid­ual repro­duc­tive choic­es. The anti-abortion ad also selec­tive­ly quotes the peti­tion say­ing the state “shall not inter­fere” to fear mon­ger to par­ents who demand tight con­trol on their chil­dren. The “pro­tect women” group is sim­ply lying.

Local media need to stop run­ning the ad. Advocacy ads are not cov­ered by fed­er­al law or cov­ered by the first amend­ment. We aren’t talk­ing about a dif­fer­ence of opin­ion we are talk­ing about a false ad.

Are ad dol­lars more impor­tant than the truth?

Broadcast media are grant­ed a license to use the pub­lic air­ways in the pub­lic inter­est. Passing off a false ad that advo­cates tak­ing rights away from peo­ple is not act­ing in the pub­lic inter­est.

About Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie

The mis­sion of the Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie is to pro­vide a sup­port­ive local com­mu­ni­ty for human­ists and oth­er non­the­ists, while pro­mot­ing an eth­i­cal, rea­son­able, and sec­u­lar approach to life through edu­ca­tion, com­mu­ni­ty ser­vice, out­reach, activism, and social events.

We envi­sion a Northwest Ohio and Southeast Michigan where sec­u­lar peo­ple are respect­ed and inte­grat­ed in broad­er soci­ety, live val­ues of rea­son and com­pas­sion, and enjoy a friend­ly human­ist com­mu­ni­ty.

Media Contacts

Douglas Berger — President
567–215-2694

#

Posted on

SHoWLE Opposes Senate Bill 49: The Religious Expression Days “R.E.D.” Act.

This ses­sion, the Ohio Senate intro­duced Senate Bill 49 also known as The Religious Expression Days “R.E.D.” Act. If passed it would give reli­gious stu­dents in pub­lic schools three days off each year for reli­gious rea­sons. SHoWLE oppos­es this bill for the main rea­son is it gives spe­cial priv­i­leges to reli­gious stu­dents. We also don’t believe a law is need­ed since many school dis­tricts cur­rent­ly make accom­mo­da­tions for reli­gious obser­vances.

SHoWLE President Douglas Berger sub­mit­ted writ­ten tes­ti­mo­ny to the Ohio Senate Education com­mit­tee. Here is the text of his remarks:

Continue read­ing “SHoWLE Opposes Senate Bill 49: The Religious Expression Days “R.E.D.” Act.”
Posted on

Pastor Protection Act Not Needed And Wrong For Ohio

Testimony giv­en to Ohio Senate com­mit­tee

TOLEDO, November 28, 2018 — Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie (SHoWLE) sub­mit­ted writ­ten tes­ti­mo­ny oppos­ing Ohio House Bill 36, also known as the “Pastor Protection Act”. The bill would repeat 1st amend­ment pro­tec­tion giv­en to faith prac­ti­tion­ers but would also allow reli­gious groups to avoid pub­lic accom­mo­da­tion laws even if a prop­er­ty is used for com­mer­cial pur­pos­es.

“This is a very dan­ger­ous change in our civ­il rights,” SHoWLE President Douglas Berger stat­ed in writ­ten tes­ti­mo­ny sub­mit­ted to the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee today. “This bill would allow reli­gious groups to dis­crim­i­nate against ANYONE that they feel doesn’t con­form to their reli­gious beliefs. Do we want to see a church food pantry turn­ing away a needy fam­i­ly because they are Mormon, since this par­tic­u­lar church doesn’t believe Mormons are Christians?”

Churches and prop­er­ty owned by reli­gious groups aren’t nor­mal­ly required to fol­low state or fed­er­al pub­lic accom­mo­da­tion laws when used explic­it­ly for reli­gious pur­pos­es. House Bill 36 does­n’t make such a dis­tinc­tion. The bill as writ­ten also would­n’t just affect same-sex cou­ples. A pas­tor per­form­ing wed­dings at the court house for a fee could decide not to sol­em­nize a mar­riage because the cou­ple in ques­tion are mem­bers of the mil­i­tary or a church fel­low­ship hall might require renters to only allow straight peo­ple to attend the event.

“Religious free­dom should be a shield to pro­tect peo­ple from per­se­cu­tion and not a sword to give spe­cial rights to a favored group that ends up per­se­cut­ing peo­ple not in that favored group, ” Berger wrote.

“This bill is a waste of time and tax­pay­er mon­ey for a prob­lem that doesn’t and will nev­er exist. Instead we would like to see the leg­is­la­ture work to make per­form­ing mar­riages more acces­si­ble by con­sid­er­ing and pass­ing Senate Bill 52 that also amends 3101.08 to allow any­one who reg­is­ters with the state to sol­em­nize a mar­riage.”

A pas­tor or priest will nev­er be forced to per­form a cer­e­mo­ny that does­n’t con­form to their deeply held reli­gious beliefs but HB 36 is being used to dis­crim­i­nate against those who don’t con­form to the favored reli­gion — name­ly LGBTQ peo­ple but the vague­ness of the law will allow all kinds of dis­crim­i­na­tion — with the force of the state.

The Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee is meet­ing this week and the hear­ing for oppo­nents of the bill is Thursday with a pos­si­ble com­mit­tee vote fol­low­ing.

“It’s say­ing some­thing when the major­i­ty par­ty is rush­ing to pro­tect pas­tors and priests from some­thing that will nev­er hap­pen while they con­tin­ue to ignore help­ing the vic­tims of cler­gy abuse,” Berger said.

While SHoWLE does­n’t believe a pas­tor or priest should be forced to do some­thing that vio­lates the 1st amend­ment, reli­gious groups should­n’t be allowed to arbi­trar­i­ly dis­crim­i­nate in the use of prop­er­ty it owns not being used for strict­ly reli­gious pur­pos­es.

Link to the  full writ­ten tes­ti­mo­ny

About SHoWLE

The mis­sion of the Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie is to pro­vide a sup­port­ive local com­mu­ni­ty for human­ists and oth­er non­the­ists, while pro­mot­ing an eth­i­cal, rea­son­able, and sec­u­lar approach to life through edu­ca­tion, com­mu­ni­ty ser­vice, out­reach, activism, and social events.

SHoWLE meets on the 2nd Saturday of each month and all gen­er­al meet­ings are free and open to the pub­lic. The web­site is humanistswle.org

Media Contacts

Douglas Berger — President
567–302-0209

Shawn Meagley — co-Founder
419–266-7945

###

Posted on

SHoWLE Will Not Take St. Anthony Land Bank Pledge

screenshot of Toledo officials and Rep. Marcy Kaptur at a press conference demanding the Diocese of Toledo save St. Anthony church

*For Immediate Release*

Toledo, Ohio, June 22, 2018 — The Lucas County Land Bank, a coun­ty agency, vot­ed to accept the dona­tion of St. Anthony Church from the Diocese of Toledo con­tin­gent on an engi­neer­ing inspec­tion and a call for writ­ten pledges to help in rede­vel­op­ing the build­ing. At this time the Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie (SHoWLE) has decid­ed NOT to make a pledge.

“Although the church and state issues we were con­cerned about seem to be abat­ed. We are still trou­bled with the city and coun­ty tak­ing on this project with­out any con­crete plans,” said SHoWLE President Doug Berger.

“We do feel that the Padua Center and the neigh­bor­hood should not only have a seat at the table but should be tak­ing the lead in any plans for the build­ing. We did­n’t feel it was appro­pri­ate telling them how to reuse the build­ing.”

Berger added that SHoWLE will be mon­i­tor­ing the issue and should it look like out­siders are min­i­miz­ing or ignor­ing neigh­bor­hood input then it is pre­pared to sup­port the neigh­bor­hood.

“Whatever is done with the build­ing has to ben­e­fit the whole neigh­bor­hood and not just the out­siders who ‘saved’ it,” Berger said.

Media Contacts

Douglas Berger — President
567–302-0209

Shawn Meagley — co-founder
419–266-7945

 

###

Posted on

Humanists Ask Toledo Officials Not To Insert Themselves In Saving St. Anthony

screenshot of Toledo officials and Rep. Marcy Kaptur at a press conference demanding the Diocese of Toledo save St. Anthony church

The Secular Humanists of Western Lake Erie (SHoWLE) urge Toledo city offi­cials and US Rep. Marcy Kaptur not to insert them­selves in the effort to save St. Anthony Catholic Church on Nebraska Avenue.

“Seeing Rep. Kaptur and cur­rent and past Toledo elect­ed offi­cials stand­ing at a podi­um with the city of Toledo seal, demand­ing the Diocese of Toledo not tear down St. Anthony is trou­bling,” Doug Berger, President of SHoWLE said.

The sep­a­ra­tion of church and state not only pro­tects the gov­ern­ment from reli­gious intru­sion but also pro­tects reli­gion from some intru­sion by the gov­ern­ment.

“It sets a bad prece­dent, espe­cial­ly as orga­nized reli­gion con­tin­ues to lose mem­bers,” Berger said. “The City of Toledo can’t save all the old church­es in the city and when it choos­es not to then that is going to be a no win sit­u­a­tion.”

The Diocese of Toledo, in a state­ment, won­dered where the calls to save the build­ing were for the past 13 years after it closed and as the build­ing con­tin­ued to dete­ri­o­rate.

“The gov­ern­ment offi­cials demand­ing the build­ing not be torn down will stick the Diocese with the repair bills should they pre­vail. The only way for tax dol­lars to be spent on a ren­o­va­tion and/or reuse would require the prop­er­ty be sold to a non-religious enti­ty at a fair mar­ket price,” Berger said.

The mis­lead­ing state­ment by a com­mu­ni­ty mem­ber that demo­li­tion would be a health and safe­ty issue is also a prob­lem.

“If the build­ing were kept, it would still need any asbestos and lead paint removed and it would have to meet mod­ern build­ing stan­dards. I don’t think the Diocese hired a fly by night demo­li­tion com­pa­ny who would­n’t take the required pre­cau­tions in tear­ing down such an old build­ing.”

The build­ing is his­tor­i­cal and sig­nif­i­cant to many peo­ple in the com­mu­ni­ty but there has­n’t been any spe­cif­ic plans from the peo­ple want­i­ng to keep it.

SHoWLE believes that Rep. Kaptur and the city of Toledo should­n’t pick sides in the issue and they should stay neu­tral as called for in the 1st amend­ment.

Related sto­ry:

Kaptur, Kapszukiewicz call on dio­cese to halt St. Anthony demo­li­tion