HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Atheist group sends 2nd c...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:02 PM

Atheist group sends 2nd complaint about war memorial

Posted: 8/2/2012 9:27:52 AM
Updated: 8/2/2012 11:56:17 AM

An atheist group based in Wisconsin has sent a second letter to the city of Woonsocket calling for the removal of a war memorial featuring a Latin cross from city property.

The World War I / World War II memorial is on the grounds of a fire station on Cumberland Hill road and has been the center of controversy since the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to the city in April demanding the monument be moved.

“In their first demand they reference our fire department website, which included, on one of the pages, a tribute to fallen firefighters that had an image of the September 11 monument that I believe is in New York City that has a statue of a firefighter with an angel over his shoulder,” Mayor Leo Fontaine of Woonsocket tells the WPRO Morning News with Tara Granahan and Andrew Gobeil. “The second letter did not reference those but did restate the demand to remove the war memorial and asks for formal legal response and that is what we are doing.”

At a 5 p.m. presentation on Friday at the Museum of Public Works Mayor Fontaine, members of the United Veteran Council, and a representative from the war memorial committee will make public the city’s formal response to the letter. The presentation will also include a video and comments from the city attorney Joe Larisa.

http://630wpro.com/Article.asp?id=2505431&spid=37719

Two letters now? I can't wait until they sue.

63 replies, 4766 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply Atheist group sends 2nd complaint about war memorial (Original post)
rug Aug 2012 OP
pennylane100 Aug 2012 #1
cleanhippie Aug 2012 #2
rug Aug 2012 #5
pennylane100 Aug 2012 #7
trotsky Aug 2012 #12
indie9197 Aug 2012 #3
rug Aug 2012 #4
trotsky Aug 2012 #21
rug Aug 2012 #22
trotsky Aug 2012 #23
OnlinePoker Aug 2012 #6
zazen Aug 2012 #52
Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #53
zazen Aug 2012 #63
Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #24
indie9197 Aug 2012 #8
rug Aug 2012 #9
longship Aug 2012 #10
humblebum Aug 2012 #27
longship Aug 2012 #28
humblebum Aug 2012 #29
longship Aug 2012 #30
humblebum Aug 2012 #32
longship Aug 2012 #34
humblebum Aug 2012 #35
longship Aug 2012 #39
humblebum Aug 2012 #40
longship Aug 2012 #41
humblebum Aug 2012 #42
humblebum Aug 2012 #43
longship Aug 2012 #44
humblebum Aug 2012 #46
longship Aug 2012 #47
humblebum Aug 2012 #48
Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #49
humblebum Aug 2012 #59
longship Aug 2012 #50
cleanhippie Aug 2012 #56
longship Aug 2012 #57
cleanhippie Aug 2012 #61
humblebum Aug 2012 #60
onager Aug 2012 #58
COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #13
mr blur Aug 2012 #25
Humanist_Activist Aug 2012 #31
Leontius Aug 2012 #33
Humanist_Activist Aug 2012 #36
Leontius Aug 2012 #37
Humanist_Activist Aug 2012 #38
Leontius Aug 2012 #45
whathehell Aug 2012 #62
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #11
COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #14
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #15
cbayer Aug 2012 #16
trotsky Aug 2012 #18
trotsky Aug 2012 #17
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #19
trotsky Aug 2012 #20
struggle4progress Aug 2012 #26
bluestateguy Aug 2012 #51
Goblinmonger Aug 2012 #54
cbayer Aug 2012 #55

Response to rug (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:06 PM

1. One way or another,

that memorial will be either gone, or missing a cross. These people never understand that their god , while he or she, might be all knowing and all seeing but will not be powerful enough to protect them from the first amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pennylane100 (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:08 PM

2. You win the thread.

Well stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pennylane100 (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:23 PM

5. I doubt it. They'll need to do more than send letters to even come close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:13 PM

7. well it might take a while,

but it will happen. Unless Romney gets elected and then all bets are off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:13 AM

12. That's true.

Privileged, arrogant Christians have a habit of telling everyone else to fuck the hell off when it comes to issues concerning the separation of church and state. Many even enjoy mocking such things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:14 PM

3. Will all the crosses at Arlington Cemetery be next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:22 PM

4. Good question. It's public property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #4)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:34 PM

21. No, it's a stupid question and you know it.

But I'm glad you found a friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #21)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 03:49 PM

22. There you are, raising the tone again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #22)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 04:21 PM

23. I did, and gave you the chance to reciprocate.

You did not. I can only conclude this is the tone you want. So enjoy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 09:40 PM

6. Here are all symbols currently allowed by the VA for headstones and markers

Funny thing is, I'm an atheist and didn't know I had my own symbol. Someone's turning atheism into a religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs_emblems_for_headstones_and_markers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #6)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 07:57 PM

52. "someone's turning atheism into a religion?" it already is

Psychologically, the constructs are all objects of consciousness.

I doubt the larger intelligence of the universe registers whether a fixation on a particular world view is a neuronal flash of an image of Jesus, or Allah, or "Rationality," or "Communism." Or American Idol. How flexible, open, loving, trusting, responsive, humble, creative, altruistic, and so on and so on can we be? I think being in that state of flow is what matters, and that's very much in the present and fleeting. It can't be grasped in consciousness.

I bet I could find you a highly open-minded member of a convent and a fundamentalist, arrogant atheist. And arrogant, closed-minded religious fanatics abound as do loving agnostics and atheists.

The object of consciousness is irrelevant. It's the quality of consciousness that matters.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zazen (Reply #52)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 08:05 PM

53. Dude, stop Bogarting the J

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #53)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 03:37 PM

63. sadly, I'm stone cold sober

Maybe I need to light one up to understand atheist activism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 10:23 AM

24. Are you perhaps mentally picturing Normandy and not Arlington?

The grave markers in Arlington are just rectangles, basically. The individual families can pick from a pre-set selection of emblems to put on the the grave marker.

The difference here is that the cross on the memorial in question is forced on people by the city whereas the emblems on the grave markers are not. In Constitutional terms, that is a HUGE difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:55 PM

8. Proving that God doesn't exist is just as hard as proving that God does exist

I wish the Atheists would just step back and practice their non religion in private. In the case of soldiers in battle I would guess that the majority of them spent their last moments in prayer unless they were killed instantly. All religions worship the same God in my opinion. To deny people the worship of God is inconsistent with worldwide beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 10:58 PM

9. Neither can be proved.

That's why it's belief - or nonbelief.

Welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 12:16 AM

10. This atheist disagrees

The public square, by the First Amendment, should be neutral on the existence of deities. The extent to which that doesn't happen is the extent our country is not truly free. Using the public square to advance your beliefs is to use the auspices of government to advance your religious beliefs, which by the Constution are personal freedoms.

And a cross is an explicitly Christian expression, not one of the same god we all worship (except those of us who do not worship).

Your wish that atheists worship in private is insulting. We don't worship anything, by choice. That's our right just as a Catholic, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, etc. has the same right to worship.

But when government uses the public square for public religious pronouncements, no matter how mild, that is an insult to the First Amendment.

BTW, welcome to DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #10)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 11:34 PM

27. Actually, the First Amendment says nothing of the sort and the idea

 

that religious symbols or religious activities cannot be erected or performed on public property is a fairly recent interpretation of the Constitution. The free exercise clause does not distinguish between public and private property. "Free exercise" is really not a difficult term to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #27)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 11:58 PM

28. What about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" do you not get?

When any government entity -- federal, or local via XIV amendment -- uses its power to express a specific religious viewpoint, it is non-Constitutional. Period!!

There is no other possible interpretation, especially considering the extensive case law upholding these very principles.

So any argument to the contrary has a steep cliff to climb.

The key word is "respecting". If you disagree, I suggest you check out the Congressional debates during the adoption of the First Amendment. There were several different versions of the amendment before both the House and Senate. The most liberal one, the one we know today, was adopted by the Senate unanimously. All others went down in flames. Same thing had happened in the house.

And SCOTUS has consistently upheld that principle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #28)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 03:57 AM

29. "And SCOTUS has consistently upheld that principle." Hardly.

 

Otherwise, there would be no Congressional chaplains, or any religious quotes or slogans or inscriptions on any public property. And there has never been an established religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #29)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 04:47 AM

30. Straw man

Since the chaplaincy in the military has never been challenged, at least to my knowledge. BTW, Madison was against such a thing and said so.

And yes, there are religious text in public buildings. So what! Doesn't make it right under our secular government.

Government cannot even "respect" an establishment of religion under our Constitution. That is as clear a statement as anybody could make.

The public square should be neutral on religion. When any government body erects a sacred monument on public land that is a violation. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #30)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 12:19 PM

32. You seem to want to ignore the full text.

 

In the context "respect" is used, it means 'regarding or 'with regard to....' And you totally ignore "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part.

That why the courts apply the lemon test. There is no automatic rejection of religion from any public square, nor has there ever been in the US.

And Madison was just one voice and we are not an autocracy. He also said many other things about religion and government, i.e.

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others." James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238

He also said:

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.

We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #32)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 12:47 PM

34. Congress shall make no law respecting...

By the 14th amendment that extends to all states and local government entities.

Therefore, if a city government erects a cross as a memorial on public land, it fails Constitutional muster. Period.

And the three prongs of the Lemon test explains why it fails.

Such a memorial probably does not have a secular purpose. It advances religion. It unnecessarily entangles government with sacred issues. So it fails all three prongs of Lemon. It only needs to fail one to be fatal.

No government entity can do this Constitutionally.

The free exercise clause does not extend to government bodies taking specifically sacred stances.

It really is that simple.

Why does the war memorial have to have a Christian cross on it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #34)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 12:56 PM

35. Actually it is not that simple, even though you say it is. And that is why we have a First

 

Amendment. And that is why the free exercise thereof clause was inserted - to prevent the attacks of demagogues. And that is why the Court has not ruled as such in all cases. I do see the word "free" in there but I am having a difficult time finding "secular." But, I'll keep looking.

The question is being asked. When the monument was erected was its purpose to establish a state religion or to honor those dead soldiers to whom the monument was dedicated?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #35)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 01:56 PM

39. Just the choice of a cross is defacto establishment.

That is the crux (so to speak) of the issue.

And about secularism:

During the congressional debates on the First Amendment, several different versions were proposed in both the House and the Senate. More than one of the proposed wordings would have encoded freedom of religion but over non-religion. All these were voted down and the most liberal version, the respecting establishment clause, survived and passed unanimously in the Senate. (Not sure about the House.)

So, any argument along your line here is clearly not upheld by either case law, let alone original intent.

Those arguments have already been made over two hundred years ago and those arguments lost.

It really is that simple. Unfortunately, theists who want to leverage their specific religion using legislative fiat are never satisfied. They interpret the amendment so that religion is favored over non-religion, or they favor the free expression clause while ignoring the respecting establishment clause. Both arguments have consistently failed in case law.

So your argument is just plain wrong.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Thomas Jefferson

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #39)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 02:39 PM

40. Nonetheless, that is the argument facing us today, and you still

 

insist on ignoring the free exercise clause which carries as much weight as the separation clause. And that fact has been recognized throughout US history as is evidenced by the existence of religious tolerance in many government functions and documents.

And your Jefferson quote is just that - a quote of one man at one point in time. Nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #40)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 03:09 PM

41. Jefferson only wrote the damned thing!!!!

You are utterly wrong on this. The courts have consistently ruled against your specific arguments.

Your religious freedom is your unalienable right, as is mine. The only way to preserve that right is if government has zero to say in the matter. The extent to which religion intrudes into the government is the extent to which we are not a free society. Any time a government agency puts a religious symbol on public ground it is an expression of religion which is expressly forbidden, no matter what you think.

Again, you are wrong, and the courts have consistently said so.

You seem to be making the very arguments that the Christian nation Republicans make. They are wrong, too.

I am done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #41)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 03:28 PM

42. "if government has zero to say in the matter" - Then if the government is saying that the monument

 

must be taken down, they are indeed saying something.

"Any time a government agency puts a religious symbol on public ground it is an expression of religion which is expressly forbidden, no matter what you think ...Again, you are wrong, and the courts have consistently said so." Fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, history does not bear you out.

One random example: MODROVICH v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, 2006

So your claim that " the courts have consistently said so" is bunk.

But the litmus test will be an examination of original intent, and those same men who fostered the Constitution also allowed for a minimal presence of religion in the affairs of government, as is evidenced by the Congressional chaplains - even over Madison's better judgment and in spite of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #41)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 03:41 PM

43. "Jefferson only wrote the damned thing!!!!"? Are you saying that he wrote the Constitution?

 

He was not even present at the Convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #43)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 03:58 PM

44. 1786 - VA Statute for Religious Freedom

Jefferson and Madison were both instrumental in the Bill of Rights. They communicated on the core issues in letter after letter. Madison actually published his first person account of the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

All of this is completely documented. Anybody who doubts it, shouldn't believe me because I post on DU. Look it up yourself. I am not making shit up.

It is all in the historic record.

Sheesh! Some people will go to extremes, even denying history to gain advantage in a losing argument.

Don't take my word. Look it up! And learn something new.

Now I am done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #44)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 04:11 PM

46. I am quite aware of Jefferson's communications with Madison, and Madison's role.

 

Nevertheless concerning the Constitution - Jefferson did not "write the damned thing!!!!"

You were done a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #46)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 04:25 PM

47. Okay! You are fucking wrong yet again

You challenged me and I will now give you the document that established the First Amendment.

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which predates the First Amendment and was the boilerplate for the same. Jefferson and Madison were the closest of friends. Their correspondences are legion. During the Constitution adoption as well as the Bill of Rights, their letters attest to the depth that they discussed matters.

Jefferson might not have literally wrote the First Amendment, but his statute (cited above) served as a boilerplate. The concept of separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment certainly originates with Jefferson, and no other (other than Madison, difficult to tell).

Again, do not take my word for this. Look it up yourself.

Regardless, I stand by my posts here.

No more on this.

And by the way, it is still unconstitutional for a city, county, state, etc. to put up a cross on public property. (which was the beginning of this argument.)

On edit: BTW, the link above goes to aUniversity of Virginia page with an annotated version of the VA Religious Freedom Act. If you wish to discount the annotations, I would caution you. Thomas Jefferson not only helped found UVA, but he was also the architect of its main campus.

Really, you should visit Virginia some day. Tour Monticello. Tour Montpelier, Madison's home, being restored to its 18th century splendor as you read this.

What the Christian historical revisionists will never acknowledge is that the father of our country is these two men, Jefferson and Madison. Without them, people would be able to make laws that enshrine their personal religious beliefs into law.

One doesn't have to be a historian to understand that doing such a thing has been universally catastrophic. Jefferson and Madison knew that. We owe so much to those principles. And people who deny it are either woefully ignorant, or are attempting to undermine primary principles on which this country was founded. Or both.

There are no other alternatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #47)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 06:20 PM

48. Oh boy !? Again, Jefferson did not write the Constitution.

 

I am well aware of everything you are saying. Jefferson contributed. His ideas are evidenced throughout, especially those he expressed in 'The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom', but he did not write "the damned thing" Constitution or the Bill of Rights as you have stated.

And how the "father of our country is these two men" - I can only roll my eyes. I hope your historical myopia isn't catching.

Now, you can be done again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #48)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 07:28 PM

49. So it's just a coincidence

that the First Amendment sounds a whole hell of a lot like what Jefferson did write earlier?

II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.


When the argument is that Jefferson wrote the First Amendment in regards to the religious aspects, it's pretty hard to say that he didn't given the Virginia document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #49)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 11:04 PM

59. Here I thought you were going to tell something I didn't already know, but still

 

he really did not write the Constitution. And yes the courts do still recognize the free exercise clauseregardless of Longship's contention.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/juneweb-only/new-york-churches-no-longer-evicted.html

"Today's permanent injunction essentially means that those on the side of churches win the case at the district court level, prevailing on the free exercise clause and establishment claims."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humblebum (Reply #48)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 07:47 PM

50. Buh bye!

Ignoring theocrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #50)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 09:22 PM

56. Welcome to DU! You just passed inititiation!

I know it's hard to believe, but you have just encountered a Poe* that we non-believers use to test new non-believers to ensure that they are not infiltrators of the militant atheist secular religion bent on its destruction. Congratulations, you passed the test. Now, if you find yourself in a position to engage him again, just remember that its just a bot programmed to repeat, ad nauseum (albeit with some variance), the nonsense you were just subjected to. To quote the Terminator movie, "...its what he does."

If at any time you find yourself feeling compelled to respond to the certain nonsense you will see again, I suggest taking a 12 lb sledge and hitting yourself repeatedly as a less-harmful, and less time consuming, alternative.

Again, welcome aboard and a job well done. Your membership card will arrive in the mail in 4-6 weeks.


*Poe --- Poe's Law is an axiom suggesting that it's difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between parodies of religious or other fundamentalism and its genuine proponents, since they both seem equally insane. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #56)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 10:22 PM

57. I raise a glass to you, cleanhippie.

If that is really your name My recently departed... ahem... friend was trying me out on the ol' Gish Gallop. I should have seen it coming. But, alas, mockery and derision upon me. I missed it.

Regardless, like any worthless cause, I stood my ground. It is good practice, you know. And as Henry Crun would say, "You cannot get the wood." (Google "Goon Show" for details.)

Maybe there ought to be a Douglas Adams allusion somewhere here. But I think I will leave you with Max Geldray on the harmonica and the Goons. (Peter Sellers, Spike Milligan, and Harry Seacomb... And Max Geldray on the harmonica)

Not joking, but the Goons certainly did.

Not a newbie here, but I do not know the rope-a-dope. Gotta talk to Muhammed Ali to straighten that out. Or maybe Harry Reid. Or maybe Lisabeth Salander.

As always, thank you for your support.

Goons forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #57)


Response to longship (Reply #50)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 11:05 PM

60. Oh. You're done again? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #44)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 10:44 PM

58. And True Xians tried to re-write that Statute, let's not forget...

From Jefferson's "Autobiography:"

Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.”

The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:29 AM

13. Nice straw man there. No one is

'denying people the worship of God', as you so eloquently put it. What is in question is whether a public space should be used to display symbols of ONE specific religious group, to the exclusion of all others. Under our Constitution the answer is No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #8)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 06:50 PM

25. I wish the Atheists would just step back and practice their non religion in private."?

Please do tell us how to practice a non-religion, in private or elsewhere. Oh, you mean, "You're an atheist? Shut up!" You'll find plenty here to agree with you. Unfortunately, they only think they own the place.

How is separating church and state "denying people the worship of God"?

How about if the Christians step back and practice their religion in private?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 08:56 AM

31. Why the fuck should atheists keep their beliefs in private and not religious people? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #31)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 12:38 PM

33. Why should anyone keep their beliefs in private if they desire to make

them public?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leontius (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 01:13 PM

36. There's a difference between expressing yourself in public, and demanding government to sanction it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #36)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 01:25 PM

37. Agree somewhat but government sanction is not really needed, it is in fact proscribed by the First

Amendment in regard to free speech and expression with certain limitations set forth by various courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leontius (Reply #37)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 01:52 PM

38. Its not just not needed, its unconstitutional. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #38)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 04:08 PM

45. I believe that's just what I said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indie9197 (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 10:45 AM

62. Yes, but you'll find many here who dislike being reminded of that fact, lol

and as much those atheists complain about "proselyting" from the religious

they become indignant with those who complain about their doing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 01:42 AM

11. Mayor to discuss response to Woonsocket War memorial complaint

Posted: 8/1/2012 2:53:47 PM

Woonsocket Mayor Leo Fontaine is calling a news conference for 5 p.m. on Friday to discuss the city of Woonsocket’s formal response to a complaint lodged by a Wisconsin based atheist group against a war memorial at a city fire station.

In April, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent the mayor a letter asking for a World War I and World War II memorial that features a large white Latin cross be removed from city property. They also requested an angel and “the Firefighters Prayer” featured on the Fire department website be removed. The group said they received a complaint from a Woonsocket resident who was offended by the memorial and that the structure violated the first amendment.

The mayor will be joined by veteran leaders Friday at the Woonsocket Museam of Work and Culture, as he announces more details about the city’s response to the atheist group and their efforts to raise money for the possible legal defense of the memorial ...

http://630wpro.com/Article.asp?id=2504928&spid=37719

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #11)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:36 AM

14. Apparently Woonsocket is the exception to the majority

of cities in these tough economic times in that they are preparing to spend beaucoup taxpayers' dollars to defend the indefensible memorial. Surely money well spent. Christ would approve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #14)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 12:27 PM

15. RI atheist group says cross should stay

By: WJAR Staff | NBC 10
Published: April 26, 2012

The co-founder of a Rhode Island atheist group said Thursday that a cross-topped war memorial in Woonsocket that's been targeted by another atheist group should stay ....

La Rose said the cross does not promote a belief in Christianity, and that it's a waste of time and money for both Woonsocket and the Wisconsin atheists to turn the memorial into a costly legal fight.

"We disagree that it should be removed. It only represents the soldiers who were killed, who were most likely Catholics," LaRose said ...

http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2012/apr/26/ri-atheist-group-says-cross-should-stay-ar-1014661/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 12:38 PM

16. In light of that, I think the Wisconsin group might want to back off and let the local

organization have this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbayer (Reply #16)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:12 PM

18. The local organization called Ocean State Atheists, that has two members?

So you forgot the smackdown too. Which is unfortunate, because you were even involved in the thread and responded to Mr. Ahlquist yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #15)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:11 PM

17. You got smacked down by an actual person involved last time you brought that up, s4p.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #17)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:22 PM

19. could be, though I should regard as irrelevant the number of people involved,

of course, and the conclusion I would reach is merely that different atheists can have different ideas of the matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #19)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:28 PM

20. "though I should regard as irrelevant the number of people involved"

That's a delicious quote from you, one that I shall bookmark and enjoy using in the future. Thanks very much!

Of course what is relevant is why a member of a two-person organization should be the arbiter on whether something violates the separation of church and state. Perhaps because you agree with his position?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 10:43 PM

26. City vows to keep defending the cross monument

August 4, 2012

BY JOSEPH FITZGERALD

WOONSOCKET — ... "This monument is dedicated to heroes and this is as close to a gravestone as this family will have on U.S. soil. We will defend this monument no matter what," Fontaine told more than 100 cheering veterans and supporters who gathered for a late afternoon press conference Friday at the Woonsocket Museum of Work and Culture ...

The memorial came under attack earlier this year by the FFRF because it includes a cross, which the organization claims is unconstitutional. The FFRF filed its initial complaint with the city in May at the behest of an unnamed "resident" whom they claimed was offended as they passed by the monument. The city received a second letter from the group in June demanding an official response.

That response came at Friday's press conference.

"The city will continue to defend and protect their monument to honor all veterans and as a memorial to our native sons who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country," Fontaine said in an official response letter dated Friday and sent to FFRF's attorney Rebecca S. Markert.

http://www.woonsocketcall.com/node/5932

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 07:51 PM

51. Yeah, uh, not a priority right now.

In case it hasn't been noticed, Wisconsin is dealing with a more serious matter right now.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/sikh_temple_shooting_milwaukee.php

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #51)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 08:06 PM

54. What can the FFRF do about the sikh shooting?

Does everything need to stop so we can deal with only one issue at a time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #51)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 08:07 PM

55. Much bigger issue for sure. I'm not sure how it correlates with this particular topic,

but I am very sorry for those who have suffered due to this tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread