Well, perhaps the monument should stay. After all, I’m looking at the back of a U.S. $20 bill and it says “In God we Trust” - and I’m pretty sure that is the same God that sent those Commandments down with Moses.
Lets face it, we are a Christian Nation and separation of church and state would take longer than any of us has time. Besides, after Bush gets thru killing all the Muslims, well, that monument won’t be such a big deal anymore.
The ACLU opposes throat shoving. Can you show otherwise?
I hate to rain on everyone here’s parades, but this isn’t about Christian or atheist or any other religious beliefs or lack thereof. This is about money and fear among city council members, pure and simple.
The council was simply trying to get out of an unpleasant situation, one not of their making, on the cheap. They get slapped with this lawsuit, more or less out of the blue, about a some damn thing in a park that probably none or only a few of them even know exist. They don’t want to pay for litigation to fight the suit, they don’t want to offend their christian supporters by having it dug out and the space re-landscaped, and either of these options will cost at least tens of thousands of dollars. If they can dispose of the problem for a few hundred bucks of court costs and contract writing, they would consider it a triumph. I also don’t believe the council has any intent to be offensive to non-christians, but the members understand that if they must choose among who to offend, they’ll choose non-christians based on numbers alone.
Kinda fun hearing this one not in GD, because it means I don’t have to do a bunch of research to tell County he’s so full of shit it’s coming out his ears. Your argument sucks. Either make up a better one or get a clue about what the law actually is.
Diogenes, great response, but I still have one question. Duffer, you provided a cite showing that 38 want the monument gone. Do you have a cite that every one of the remaining 86,962 residents of Duluth is on your side?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Cite?
I want to say something mean about duffer but I can’t think of anything meaner than “he’s duffer.” Post after post after post in this thread are filled to the brim with misinformation and stupidity. Every time I think he’s said the dumbest thing ever, damn if he doesn’t go and raise the bar.
Speaking as a hard core atheist and First Amendment fundamentalist, this solution would be acceptable to me.
Yes, well, that’s because you can’t read. The 14th Amendment makes the Constitution binding upon state legislatures as well as Congress. Local governments aren’t mentioned because- wait for this- they are extraconstitutional. As far as the US Constitution is concerned, local government does not exist, except as an arm of the federal and state governments.
“Seperation [sic] folk” haven’t layered any more upon your “very simple edict” than, say, gun-rights advocates have layered upon the 2nd Amendment. Besides, you’re a fucking moron. The Constitution is the bare bones of a system of government and justice. The Framers intended for it to be fleshed out by Congress and the judiciary; that’s why the whole thing is so vague.
Public funding or support (in this case, the provision of public land) for a religious monument implies government support of the viewpoint of that religion. While tax dollars going toward the unkeep of this monument is not in itself going to affect anyone adversely, it carries the implicit message that the local government subscribes to the ideas enshrined on that monument- by the same token that a war memorial paid for with public funds implies that the loss of the soldiers named on the monument is a bereavement of the people, not just of their families.
As a symbol of historical significance, I have no problem with a government paying for upkeep or whatever of the monument, any more than I would with a public gallery displaying The Last Supper. If the local government were to observe that the monument is displayed merely for its historical significance, I’d be all for it. Otherwise, it reinforces idiocy like what you see below:
There are about 2 billion Muslims. I imagine killing all of them will take longer than any of us has time. Besides, then you’ll still have to worry about the Hindus, pagans, Buddhists, atheists, and so forth. Fucktard.
I’m hardly a “religionist” as I haven’t set foot in a church for years other than to attend a wedding or a funeral. Nor do I have “contempt” for the separation of church and state. I do become incensed when nosy bastards come along and start a hullabaloo over something that isn’t bothering anybody but them.
The monument was donated to the Borough. Cost=ZERO. It is piece of stone sitting on the ground. Cost to maintain=ZERO. Take the self-righteous stick out of your own ass, fuckwit. Denis=ZERO.
I’m iffy on that. It kinda sends the message that local governments everywhere can start selling off real estate to any fundie whack job who wants to put up a monument to the Ten Commandments or the resurrection or whatever.
In this particular instance, I’m all for it… as noted in my previous post, I think the monument should be allowed to stay up purely as an item of historical significance.
Dances, there have been a number of posts in this thread that specifically mention and address the fact that the monetary burden of the monument has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Uh, local governments everywhere *can * sell off real estate to any fundie whack job. And they’re given tax exemptions as well. I don’t see a problem with that.
Other than the OP, answer to a question, and my reply to being cursed at, what have I kept bringing up?
Attitudes like yours are the reason for the legal protests of religion that even appears to be officially sanctioned. If our current president had his way we would indeed be a Christian nation. And once that had the force of law, anyone who was not a Christian would be an outlaw. That may sound like a good idea to you, but, frankly, I would not like to return to the dark days of the auto da fe.
Whether you like it or not, this is not a Christian nation, or a Judeo-Christian one. As the Founders intended, it is a secular nation in which my rights as an agnostic are equal to yours as a (I assume) Christian. Thank God. 
The “In God We Trust” on our money is (and has been) the subject of another debate. I doubt that it will be settled anytime soon.
Hm, what about any churches on the national register that are maintained and owned by various local, state or federal governmental agencies?
Personally, I dont mind a place on the historic landmark/national register being owned and maintained as it seems the ones i have toured are more used as an example of architectural style, or of historic significance. I am somewhat of a history buff and I enoy being able to go and see many of the places I have read about in history references…
Unfortunately, the financial situation sees more and more private organizations unable to meet any sort of financial commitment without governmental help…
When a church becomes a historic monument, I agree that its historic significance justifies maintenance funded by the public. But such monuments are usually de-consecrated, are they not? Their maintenance by a national, state or local government implies only an interest in history/education, not an endorsement of the religion. I have no problem with that.
Nope.
This is a Wisconsin case and is not binding outside the district but at least one court has found that selling off a parcel of public land for the purpose of maintaining a TC monument is unconstitutional. It is also IMHO bad public policy in general to sell off pieces of park land.
As far as the “In God We Trust” motto on currency is concerned, SCOTUS has ruled that (paraphrasing) it is an establishment but is one of so little consequence that it doesn’t rise to the level of violating the Establishment Clause. I think the Court was dead wrong on it, and the proof of it is the stringent attacks that are leveled any timeit’s suggested that the phrase be removed from money or as the national motto.
What? Read the bit I quoted from you. THAT is what you keep bringing up.
I got here too late to be the first to make this point, but it’s an important point… When someone actively tries to push a message, a monument, or an activity into a sphere of government-funded life (be it parks, curerncy, or school), they are attempting (actively or not) to gain government sanction of that message, monument, or activity.
When someone else fights against them, to keep whatever it is out of government sanction, that person is NOT attempting to shove their viewpoint down everyone’s throat. They are trying to keep the first viewpoint OUT. A park with no Christian monuments is NOT an atheist park, it’s a park with no Christian monuments.
If 38 people in Duluth claim that the constitution requires a plaque to be put INTO the park reading “there is no God”, then you can complain. Until then, you’re wrong and your argument is spurious.