I’d hardly call the OP “civil” when he/she tells those concerned about state imposition of religion to “get over yourself.” No, that’s not very nice, and I responded in kind.
Your mileage obviously varies.
Shut up, y’know?
This smugness toward those of us who think the Constitution is meant for all, rather than the majority is quite unflattering to you.
I’m referring to your previous posts in this thread, in case you’re wondering.
Denis? Are you just having a really bad day today?
Because you’re coming off a little grouchy.
No, spooje, not a bad day.
I get pretty passionate about Church/State Separation issues because I think the principle is very important to our civic life (to be perfectly civil about it).
Sorry for the excessive snarkiness, and particular apologies to **Monkey, danceswithcats, **and duffer.
I’ll keep my cool, folks.
So, dances… we’re supposed to overlook violations of the Constitution because you don’t care about them? 
Trust me, any smugness I may have had has been well knocked down in Pit threads. By much better people than you. (Had to get that needle in)
Yes, the Constitution is for all. But based on this quote, it seems you want to argue that if even one disagrees, it’s invalid. Sometimes majority rules.
And arguing that a Creator wasn’t intended/implied/implicit in the formation of the US is disingenuous (sp?) at best. The US was founded on freedom of religion, like it or not. Nobody is forcing religion on the 38 citizens of Duluth. The 38 are forcing their views on the other 86,962. Sounds scary that so few can dictate what so many hold dear.
You may not agree with Christianity, Judaism nor Islam. But you are in the minority. I think even atheists will agree with this. I don’t want America to declare anyone has to agree with any doctrine. At the same time, I don’t want anyone telling me I can’t express a love for Christ.
If atheists want to dictate what happens to public lands, whouldn’t those of faith be able to demand you pay for the costs of said buildings?
Now go feed a homeless person and stop worrying about a peice of stone.
Above posted before your clarification, don’t be offended. It’s just that I, too, feel passionate about it. handshake
duffer, handshake accepted and returned.
I guess we can “agree to disagree” on some aspects of this issue.
Peace.
This whole separation of church and state isn’t something I get really worked up about. I mean, sure, I’m a Christian so it doesn’t necessarily upset me if something religious is left up, but if it doesn’t belong there, or is gratuitous, then hell, take it down. I don’t want to shove my religion down anyone’s throat. So hey. It’s cool.
But some of you people are just over the top in your reactions and you make my eyes bug open. ::looking meaningfully at xan in regards to that outburst earlier in this thread::
I think Monkey with a Gun has provided us with cites that indicate that the thing should be moved. Sounds reasonable to me.
However, he’s given cites of other (very) historical buildings that are not probably ever going to be removed. I’d be curious to know, do some of you want those torn down or the “offending” elements removed or anything? I’m just curious. Based on some of the passion exhibited on this thread, y’know, I’m not sure what to expect from some of you . . .
Duffer, I have a couple of bones to pick with you. First, you say: **“Maybe it’s a reminder that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Sorry to spew the truth, just the way it is.” **
If you look around you, you might notice that “Judeo-” used in that context is often PC talk by Christians spoken as if to include Jews in the religious heritage of the majority, but often (though not always) insincerely.
A little further down you say: "And what exactly are the atheists and the ACLU trying to do?"
The answer is, they are trying to prevent the majority from forcing them to view tax-supported religious symbolism. The Christian majority would be the bullies here if the atheists and the ACLU would just acquiesce and allow them to.
Xan, you managed to get 6 variations of “fuck” and one “goddamn” into one paragraph. I know this is the pit, but if your vocabulary is that severely limited, perhaps you should stick to chat rooms.
I am a dissenter from all religions I know of, but, with, Denis, I contribute to religious charities when I can if I think they are doing good work without proselytizing. The Salvation Army is one of my favorites. I know they make religion available to anyone who wants it, but I’ve never heard of them making people read tracts in order to get a meal.
Oh, and Duffer, I’d love to take on your “Wow! 87,000 citizens! And 38 want the monument gone. Talk about forcing a belief system down an unwilling throat!”, but Dio already did, and said it much better than I would have.
-
The majority by default are paying the taxes.
-
The monument in both cases was donated by the FOE. In other words, at no cost to taxpayers. If anything, it saves taxpayer money by taking up that much grass that doesn’t have to be mown. Hell, it is environmentally friendly in that sense!
I stand by my conviction (no, not the one where the judge said I need help) that this is more a case of people that have such a good life they can afford to waste time on things like this.
If you can make a convincing argument to me about how a monument negatively affects your day to day life, I’ll consider it. Otherwise, it just sounds like you want to rile up the pot to give purpose to what you do in your spare time.
I honestly wish I could see what the furor is about this, but I can think of a dozen things more important to the citizens of these communities than a peice of stone.
By the way Desert Geezer all those tax payer dollars are due in cash. All the cash says In God We Trust .
Since you don’t want anything concerning God invading your life, you can send all folding currency to me. 
Yeah, but my God can eat your God.
Anyone want to take this action? I’ll give 5:1 odds. Just send the money in to me and I’ll record all bets.
You know, I really really hate that phrase. Why don’t people say Babylonian-Christian values? Or Egyptian-Christian values instead? Same things, when you get down to it, and just as related.
I’m going to say this, and I’m going to say this very clearly. Jewish values are not the same as Christian ones. Do you remember the whole bit where Jesus came to fufil the law? The bit where the old testament values no longer applied to this new religion he was establishing? Do you happen to notice that there have been two thousand years of seperation between the two religions?
So stop trying to push your weak-ass devaluation of two religions in order to make it seem like you’re being multiculturalist. You’re not. You’re just pushing christian values and trying to cover it up.
Coward.
This argument is silly. There’s no belief system forced on anybody by not having anything in a park.
Your statement is akin to state that I’m forcing my belief system on you by staying silent instead of talking about your religion.
That might be true, but you could state also that people worried about democracy too are people who have such a good life (they’re not starving, aren’t homeless, etc…) they can afford to waste time on things like freedom of speech or rule of law.
The US Consitiution may be the foundation of the CURRENT United States, but in general many people who came here in 1620 happened to bail out of England for purely religious purposes…there were a few non-pilgrim sailors and servants along, but primarily it was a colony founded by what are now known as ‘pilgrims’. They were the first real ‘separatists’. The Jamestown colony [1607] was urely mercantile - meaning they were here for financial gain, not because they wanted to leave all home country influences. Same with Spanish colony in 1563 [St Augustine, Fla], French in 1603[Quebec], Holland 1634 [new Amsterdam, now New york], and Sweden in 1638 [New Sweden] - they WANTED lots of financially profitable contact with the old country. The pilgrims basically wanted to be left alone. Their charter is available online http://members.aol.com/calebj/compact.html
They specifically ‘swear’ their allegiance to the colony - not the king…
And FWIW, I am not christian, and I have no problem with them maintaining an historic monument, but I would be upset if they wanted to build a new one…
Granted, contact between portugese, dutch and english fishing vessels with indian fishing parties had been in contact at the cod fishing areas around the grand banks…but in general the first long term surviving colony was purely religious in founding.
I’m sorry about my outburst. I’m just really passionate about stuff like this. I appologize to anyone I may have offended.
Hey, its the Pit, knock yourself out.
Try being pagan and living in the bible belt for a while. Ever been spit upon and had the police refuse to do anything about it? I don’t even wear any pagan identifiable chachkas … all I said was that I wasn’t interested in donating to Pat Robertson as I was not christian … in my own doorway as they knocked at some unholy hour of a saturday morning to flog up contributions for his ‘good works’
I may get upset about things, but I tend to be more mellow about things=)