Say Anything Blog

I believe that it a sad state when long standing monuments hsve to be removed because someone might be offended.  Does historical precedent count for nothing anymore?  This is really a product of multi-cultural madness which attempts to neuter the cultural identity of a nation.  When all idealogies are equivalent, a society has no culture.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Screw the Constitution, majority rules?

The God Baal

What really bothers the people who voted for this, is the last commandment, which they violate routinely until they can use government power to violate the eighth one!(:^(

The Free thinkers are a bunch of left wing zealots that won in this case.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

The Fargo Forum has an on-line poll on the issue.

By a 3-1 margin that respondents to that poll disagree with moving it.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

So maybe the Fargo residents need to vote their leaders out of office. I am sure Hennen will be on this tomorrow…

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Screw the Constitution, majority rules

What part of the constitution states that we can’t have religious memorials on public property?  The constitution states that a) citizens can freely practice the religion of their choice and b) the government can’t officially endorse one religion over another.

The government.  If the people of the city vote to keep the monument, that’s not an act of the government.  That’s an act of the people.  Further, the monument doesn’t represent an official endorsement anymore than the portrait of Jimmy Carter hanging in the White House represents President Bush’s endorsement of his policies.

Finally, there might be a problem if a group of, say, Buddhists asked to have their own monument on the city grounds.  If you put it to the vote of the people it still wouldn’t be an act of the government endorsing religion, but there may be an “equal protection” lawsuit in there somewhere.

Regardless, there’s nothing unconstitutional about the 10 commandments on public property, especially when the public overwhelmingly approves.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So maybe the Fargo residents need to vote their leaders out of office.

Probably so.

In most cases the people defer to the elected leaders on matters of budget or other technical matters.  That’s because of the supposedly greater knowledge of the leaders in these matters.

In this matter the opinions of the average yokel are every bit as valid as those on the city council.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Woof has it right.
Rob, what the hell are you thinking. Would not slavery be around if ad populum rang true? The people who want this monument to be displayed are pushing an agenda. Our taxes all pay for the upkeep. As another atheist, I disagree with your sentiments here. We need to abide by the constitution, and not let radical right-wing pundits get their claws into the secularism that is supposed to be prevelant. Secularists we should all be, for it is the very principles of seperation of church and state that benefit even the theists! Do your research, people. I support the move of the monument, and you should too.

Woof has it right.
Rob, what the hell are you thinking. Would not slavery be around if ad populum rang true? The people who want this monument to be displayed are pushing an agenda. Our taxes all pay for the upkeep. As another atheist, I disagree with your sentiments here. We need to abide by the constitution, and not let radical right-wing pundits get their claws into the secularism that is supposed to be prevelant. Secularists we should all be, for it is the very principles of seperation of church and state that benefit even the theists! Do your research, people. I support the move of the monument, and you should too.

Hey Jack, you seem like the sort of atheist who is a) is as intolerant as the religious zealots who want prayer in school and b) gives real atheists a bad name.

Pray tell, what part of the constitution forbids religious displays on public property?  And don’t throw “separation of church and state” at me because that isn’t in the Constitution.

As long as the City of Fargo isn’t showing favoritism to one religion over the other (and as far as I know no other religion has requested space for a monument on the lawn) then the monument is explicitly constitutional.

As for slavery, it was ended through an amendment to the Constitution was it not?  A vote of the representatives of the people?

I understand why direct democracy isn’t a good thing nationally, but for local issues like religions monuments on public property?  Vote away.

The will of the people should always be respected when possible.  After all, a “tyranny of the minority” is something the founders wanted to avoid as well as the tyranny of direct democracy.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The idea that issues like religious displays on public property shouldn’t be put to votes of the people smacks of liberal elitism.

Yes, we elect people to represent us.  But ultimately those people are put in office to serve the will of the people, not buck the will of the people to pursue their own agendas.

And as detestable as things like slavery are, sometimes you do have to convince a majority of the people to get something like that changed.

We say the same thing with gay marriage.  I, personally, voted to legalize it here in ND (or, more accurately I guess, not make it explicitly illegal) but a majority of my fellow citizens disagreed with me.  And enough citizens continue to disagree that none of the legislators want to legalize it.  So until someone can convince enough North Dakotans that gay marriage should be legal it’s going to remain illegal.

As misguided as people like Jack and Woofie may think the rest of America’s citizens are on certain issues, until they can win over a significant number of supporters to their view the majority is going to win.

That’s tough, but it’s the way democracy works, all caveats about America’s representative Democracy aside.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

After all, a “tyranny of the minority” is something the founders wanted to avoid as well as the tyranny of direct democracy.

Huh?  Cite some source before you go make shit up.  The Bill of Rights was written to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Make shit up?  Please, Hawk, learn some history.

I am well versed in the problems with an “overbearing majority” as addressed by James Madison in Federalist 10, and would note that the electoral college (with you dumb libs were all against after the 2000 elections) was one way to protect against a small handful of states determining national elections.

But on the flip side of that, no one ever intended issues to be settled by an extremist majority that seizes the attention and gets things done that people don’t want essentially by throwing a tantrum.

Also, we’re not talking about slavery here. Or voting rights.  Or even something like gay marriage.  We’re talking about a monument on municipal grounds, and issues like that are settled through popular votes all the time.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Cite one source where the founding fathers worried about the “tyranny of the minority.” You use their authority to add credence to your argument.  Intellectually dishonest.

Jack and any others .. I am more than pleased to handle the upkeep of this monument that seems to be eating up your City tax dollars. Personally, I find it no trouble at all to wash, weed, polish or maybe even occasionally repair the monument. I am even more pleased to do this if it helps to resolve your hostile ideas that perhaps some non atheist is taking something of yours away. 

It’s really rather sad, Hawk, that you accuse me of being dishonest simply because you refuse to put due diligence into exploring the words and motives of our founders.

I know you libs only selectively admire the genius of the founders (federalism and republicanism are only ok when they jive with your political agenda), but this is ridiculous.

From Federalist 51:

In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.

Note the bolded section.

The goal of the founders was, ultimately, justice.  And what they sought in government was balance.  They did not want a united coalition of majority interests to be able to trample the rights of a minority, but nor did they want a coalition of winy, self-important simps to control the nation’s policies either.

Note also that Madison was addressing the structure of the federal government, largely in defense of a bicameral legislature (one part of Congress representing the states, one part representing the people) and the electoral college.  Both protections against large states trampling the smaller states and/or the people.

Federalists like Madison believed also believed that the division of the US into states was the best way to handle certain political issues because it allowed problems to be solved in varying ways to the satisfaction of those most local to the problem.

It doesn’t get more local than municipal politics, so the City of Fargo solving this problem through a direct vote of the people is hardly against the principles of federalism you liberals so selective apply.

Note also that public opinion polls indicate that the will of Fargoans is to have the monument on the city property they paid for at approximately a 2 - 1 margin.  The same margin, coincidentally, the founders set out for certain functions of Congress.  Such as ratifying an amendment to the constitution.

So tell me, jackass, why is a 2/3’s majority acceptable to amend the most important legal document in this country but not acceptable enough to decide a trivial issue about a monument on city property?

And don’t even try bringing up the “separation of church and state” thing again, because that phrase isn’t in the constitution.  What is in the constitution is a prohibition on stopping the free exercise of religion and a prohibition on Congress establishing a religion (or showing favoritism to one or the other).

None of that is happening in this instance.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s really rather sad, Hawk, that you accuse me of being dishonest simply because you refuse to put due diligence into exploring the words and motives of our founders.

sniffle. i need a new hanky.

The goal of the founders was, ultimately, justice.

yes, but not an ideal or static form of justice rob.

They did not want a united coalition of majority interests to be able to trample the rights of a minority, but nor did they want a coalition of winy, self-important simps to control the nation’s policies either.

i must have missed that quote… where did you get that from? winy self important simps? don’t make the founders current day partisan rob. what you are doing is sad too. speak for yourself.

What part of the constitution states that we can’t have religious memorials on public property?

that would be the separation of church (religious) and state (public). got that rob, end all be all interpreter of the constitutioin? I DON’T WANT MY FUCKING TAXMONEY PAYING FOR RELIGIOUS SHIT. duh.

Sparkie, Sparkie get a freaking grip on reality!

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”

It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish a state religion/demonination, which is the (the “Establishment Clause")or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the “Free Exercise Clause") even in the public square.

1. The Constitution and the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in no way, shape, manner or form prohibits religious or any speech for that matter in word, deed or by religious memorials upon federal, state or local property.

2. It prohibits the Federal Government from establishing one religion as the official state religion as was the custom in Europe at the time.

3. Further, and this is the most important, it prohibits Congress from passing any laws of any kind restricting religious expression in the public square, no matter how that public square is defined. It does not demand equal treatment in the matter of religious worship that is permitted in the public square.

4. The Bill of Rights was intended to keep the federal government completely out of religious matters, whether proactively promoting one religion over the other, or in any manner restricting free worship anywhere in the United States on any property. The Bill of Rights handcuffs the Congress not the people.

5. Yes, I know that old fool Hugo Black manufactured a separation of Church and State out of whole cloth; but the word separation is neither used nor hinted at in the Bill of Rights; that is, Separation of Church and State, as presently defined as a federal, state and local government hostility towards religion, which violates the clear words as are included above.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

that would be the separation of church (religious) and state (public)

Wanna quote that section from the constitution, Mr. Smart Ass?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I should note that my point in all of this isn’t support for the monument (I’d vote against it myself) but rather that we can’t simply employ loose interpretations of the constitution to condemn things we don’t like.

There is nothing unconstitutional about this monument, and a vote of the people is undoubtedly the least controversial way of solving the question of whether or not it should exist on municipal property.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

scarequote alert writes:

Which is the case with these unthinking “Freethinkers” who pushed to have this monument removed in the first place.

What about the unthinking “Christians” here? Do they get a free pass?

Most of you have it wrong. The people voted to move the ten commandments monument after deciding that they didn’t want a freethinkers’ monument (quoting the Treaty of Tripoli’s clause that the “United States is in no way a Christian nation."). In fact, they didn’t want to make room for another religiously-themed viewpoint, so they are removing the 10 commandments. Justice has been served.

By the way, the words “separation of church and state” may not be in the constitution, but the concept certainly is. Kind of like how Christians would argue that the concept of “Trinity” is in the Bible, yet the word “trinity” does not appear anywhere in that book.

What about the unthinking “Christians” here? Do they get a free pass?

I wasn’t aware that it was the Christians who started this particular ruckus.

The “Freethinkers” are a bunch of reactionary douchebags ever bit as intolerant and annoying as your average bible thumper.

Most of you have it wrong. The people voted to move the ten commandments monument after deciding that they didn’t want a freethinkers’ monument (quoting the Treaty of Tripoli’s clause that the “United States is in no way a Christian nation.").

First, I haven’t heard of such a vote in Fargo to remove the 10 commandments monument.  I heard the city commissioners voted, but not the citizens.  So I think you’re the one mistaken, but I’m willing to be proven wrong.

There’s got to be an article out there indicating such a vote.  Link it.

Second, while America isn’t officially a Christian nation, denying the nation’s Christian heritage is just plain petty.  I’m a staunch atheist, but even I can accept the reality of history.

By the way, the words “separation of church and state” may not be in the constitution, but the concept certainly is

Here’s what the Constitution says about religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Now since section 1 of the 14th amendment explicitly denies the various states from establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of it, we can dispense with any notion in that regard.

So what we’re left with are these two questions concerning the monument:

1) Does it prevent the free exercise of religion?

Answer: No.

2) Does it represent the City of Fargo, the State of North Dakota or the USA establishing a religion?  Or even endorsing one religion over another? 

Given that no other religion has been denied access to putting a monument on city property, the answer is again: No.

So thus the monument is on sound constitutional ground.

Remember that it’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I wasn’t aware that it was the Christians who started this particular ruckus.

If a monument on the commons is ok why not an altar , a temple?
Can I use the ten commandments monument to sacrifice a Red Heifer upon?

The separation of church and state is what protects freedom of religion.

Wolfman: Rob had it right, it is a matter for states and municipalities to decide what to allow and not allow; and being thus more answerable to the people than those in Washington, the voters can best express their desires throught the ballot box.

Woolfie: It is not Separation as you define it that protects freedom of religion, if for no other reason than it does not exist as you and Adrienne define it; religious freedom is enshrined in the Bill of Rights for every religion; and the Congress is prohibited thereby from passing any laws prohibiting the free exercise of religious faith.

Adrienne: If there are no clear words at least hinting at the false doctrine of Separation of Church and State as you define it, then the concept is absent as well. Thus, we must look to the papers of the Founding Father’s, most especially those involved in writing and approving the Constitution, and finally at how the First Amendment worked out in practice, in the real world.

Well, you will find that the Founding Father’s prayed to the Judeo-Christian God publicly while drafting the Constitution. The Creator that endowed us with these rights was acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence (our national charter), Christian Chaplains prayed in the House and Senate and at the innaguration of our Presidents; like George Washington, whom also held his hand on a Christian Bible when sworn into office, as have every other President, Vice President and Cabinet Secretary. I could go on and on, but the facts tell us that until 1948 there was a general acceptance of our Christian roots in this country and of the significant influence of the Christian faith upon our society. There was no movement to make the U.S. into a theocracy by these terrible Christians, no one objected to the crèche being on every public park, city hall, state house, the White House and in the Capital Building. So, the absolute separation you prefer was not in play at all, and yet there was no danger of a national Christian Denomination being made into law, and other religions and atheists prospered right along with everyone else.

So, I would say that the Bill of Rights, the documents of our Founding Fathers and roughly 175 years of United States history would testify loudly and clearly against your belief that the concept of separation existed in the Bill of Rights.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

If a monument on the commons is ok why not an altar , a temple?

Because a monument isn’t an altar or a temple, you absurd jackass.

Can I use the ten commandments monument to sacrifice a Red Heifer upon?

I don’t know, petition the city and see if you can get a permit for that kind of public demonstration.

The separation of church and state is what protects freedom of religion.

There is no separation of church and state.  That’s not in the constitution.  What is in the constitution, and what does protect religion in America, is the first amendment which prevents the government from stopping the exercise of religion or favoring one religion over another.

Seriously, poodle.  The constitution really isn’t that hard to read.  You should pick up a copy and give it a shot some time.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Adrienne

By the way, the words “separation of church and state” may not be in the constitution, but the concept certainly is. Kind of like how Christians would argue that the concept of “Trinity” is in the Bible, yet the word “trinity” does not appear anywhere in that book.

Are you suggesting that how ever someone comprehends the Constitution to mean then that meaning should become their legal constitutional right?
If anyones “concept” of the Constitution can be a legal mandate then I foresee a lot of Christians saying they think it means the monument is their constitutional right to freedom of religion.
By the way, the words “freedom of religion” may not be in the constitution… oh wait, those words are in there!!! Does that mean it is a constitutional right and not merely a concept?

Can I use the ten commandments monument to sacrifice a Red Heifer upon?

see if you can get a permit for that kind of public demonstration.

You mean the state can limit my religious freedom?

You mean the state can limit my religious freedom?

Sure, just as they can limit your freedom of speech by issuing permits for demonstrations on public property and arresting you for screaming in the middle of the street at 4:00am.

The idea that the government can’t limit religious expression was never my point.  My point is that there is nothing unconstitutional about a 10 commandments monument on Fargo city property.  And, also, that the best way to solve the issue in the least controversial way is through a vote of the people.

What have you got against the will of the majority, Poodle?  The vast majority?  If most of the taxpayers in Fargo want the monument, so be it.

Who are you to say otherwise?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

What have you got against the will of the majority,

The rationalization for lynching.

Hey Jack, you seem like the sort of atheist who is a) is as intolerant as the religious zealots who want prayer in school and b) gives real atheists a bad name.

*sigh* You say so much while saying so little! You throw around the word ‘intolerant’ so very much, but you resort to ad hominems in Ann Coulter-like fashion. You seem pretty unpleasant to talk to or converse with.
I still can’t believe why you’d want to have the townspeople have it their way in this sort of instance.

The “Freethinkers” are a bunch of reactionary douchebags ever bit as intolerant and annoying as your average bible thumper.

This is indicative of most of the unsubstantiated claims that you keep expounding here. Sure, all of us have good intentions (at least I hope so). You seem to get off on assuring yourself that you’re correct, Rob. That’s ok. I’m willing to humble myself in this instance and agree with you on some points.
However, the overall consensus that Fargo should allow this type of monument on city property will bring trouble in the long run no matter what a bunch of old fogies cluching bibles and emotional high schoolers scooping ice cream bring to the table in this matter. Constitutional lawyers from outside the state will bring the same age-old cases to this situation as has been done elsewhere in the nation. I still am certainly not swayed by your mode of discourse, and wish secularism to prevail. The reason I leave this issue to it’s own (as you will) is because I see the end to be an embarassment to the religious right that dominates the community.

I’m sorry Rob, you seem like the typical ‘angry atheist’ that embarasses atheists like me. At least your intellectualism is apparent! For that, mad props.

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

J_Rivs says this:

This is indicative of most of the unsubstantiated claims that you keep expounding here.

...in reaction to this comment from myself…

The “Freethinkers” are a bunch of reactionary douchebags ever bit as intolerant and annoying as your average bible thumper.

...and then manages to substantiate my statement for me in the next paragraph:

However, the overall consensus that Fargo should allow this type of monument on city property will bring trouble in the long run no matter what a bunch of old fogies cluching bibles and emotional high schoolers scooping ice cream bring to the table in this matter.

Congratulations, sir, you managed to contradict yourself within three sentences.

A rare feat indeed.

I’m sorry Rob, you seem like the typical ‘angry atheist’ that embarasses atheists like me.

Angry atheist?  Hardly.  I’m a happy-go-lucky guy who doesn’t feel the need to file lawsuits over the pledge of allegiance or chunks of rock on city property.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Poodle:

The rationalization for lynching.

Right.  Because an initiated ballot measure over a monument on city property is obviously the same thing as a lynch mob.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Okay, this was much more readable. Rob, as another ‘freethinker’ as you are (I’m assuming) although you may not ‘run with the crowd’… I cannot see how you could support this imposing monument (chunk of rock), or injections of religiosity into the pledge (which most children are forced to mindlessly recite).
The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry. Clerical authorities should not be permitted to legislate their own parochial views - whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social - for the rest of society. Nor should tax revenues be exacted for the benefit or support of sectarian religious institutions. Individuals and voluntary associations should be free to accept or not to accept any belief and to support these convictions with whatever resources they may have, without being compelled by taxation to contribute to those religious faiths with which they do not agree. Similarly, church properties should share in the burden of public revenues and should not be exempt from taxation. Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle. Today, nontheistic as well as theistic religions compete for attention. Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views. Here we see a modern secular version of the violation of the separation principle.

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

Individuals and voluntary associations should be free to accept or not to accept any belief and to support these convictions with whatever resources they may have, without being compelled by taxation to contribute to those religious faiths with which they do not agree.

Fair enough, though I’d point out that I’m compelled to subsidize abortion mills like Planned Parenthood and lazy layabouts on welfare.  Somehow, I think you’d fight me if I wanted to end those expenditures of my tax dollars.

Similarly, church properties should share in the burden of public revenues and should not be exempt from taxation.

I agree, though my position has nothing to do with religion, and would note that groups like the NAACP (who are enormously political in nature) should have their tax-exempt status removed as well.

Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle.

Can you point me to any public institution that forces people to pray? That some institutions (up to and including Congress) have invocations at their commencement is no compulsion for you to bow your head to the great father figure in the clouds.  Sometimes the majority rules, and I fail to see why the majority should be prevented from addressing their god at certain public functions or gatherings simply because it makes you all bitchy.

By the way, the “separation” principle isn’t in the Constitution.  There is no freedom from religion.  Only freedom of religion.  And given that this is a religious country, you’re just going to have to deal with that.

Today, nontheistic as well as theistic religions compete for attention.

And there’s something wrong with that?  What’s wrong with competition?  I mean, you excoriate competition, and then go on to this:

Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views.

So you don’t want religious organizations to compete with secular organizations, but then you accuse the status quo of being like communism.

For a free thinker, you sure don’t think much (I never get tired of that joke). 

If you’re going to tell me that America currently doesn’t tolerate free expression or political/religious dissent you’re going to have to show me some evidence.  Like you maybe being picked up by the cops for whining about God on some internet message board.

What?  That’s never happened?  You’ve always been allowed to express your views on politics and religion freely?  You’ve never been forced to pray or attend church?

Kinda shoots your argument all to hell, now, doesn’t it?

Life’s a bitch, ain’t it?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob:

Because an initiated ballot measure over a monument on city property is obviously the same thing as a lynch mob.

Please, learn how to read. I can teach you.

Do you not see where woof was talking about the lynch mob, numb nuts?

For someone who allegedly attends college you’re pretty dumb.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob, you’re a frustrating person to deal with here. Can you re-read and see where maybe you assumed too much or even took the excerpts of text out of context entirely?
Do you inject steroids? You’re raging.... seemingly primitively. I imagine you hitting ‘enter’ with fury and then grinning impishly, pounding your chest in pride-like fashion. So convinced are you that you are 100% correct.

And there’s something wrong with that?  What’s wrong with competition?  I mean, you excoriate competition, and then go on to this:

I never claimed anything is wrong with ‘competition’ per se. This is a casual observation.

Can you point me to any public institution that forces people to pray? That some institutions (up to and including Congress) have invocations at their commencement is no compulsion for you to bow your head to the great father figure in the clouds. 

Elementary schools and some sectarian schools in areas that are similar to FARGO, ND.

Myth:

You have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

This claim is common, but it rests on a misunderstanding of what real freedom of religion entails. The most important thing to remember is that freedom of religion, if it is going to apply to everyone, also requires freedom from religion. Why is that? You do not truly have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs if you are also required to adhere to any of the religious beliefs or rules of other religions.

As an obvious example, could we really say that Jews and Muslims would have freedom of religion if they were required to show same respect to images of Jesus that Christians have? Would Christians and Muslims really have freedom of their religion if they were required to wear yarmulkes? Would Christians and Jews have freedom of religion if they were required to adhere to Muslim dietary restrictions?

Simply pointing out that people have the freedom to pray however they wish is not enough. Forcing people to accept some particular idea or adhere to behavioral standards from someone else’s religion means that their religious freedom is being infringed upon.

Freedom from religion does not mean, as some mistakenly seem to claim, being free from seeing religion in society. No one has the right not to see churches, religious expression, and other examples of religious belief in our nation — and those who advocate freedom of religion do not claim otherwise.

What freedom from religion does mean, however, is the freedom from the rules and dogmas of other people’s religious beliefs so that we can be free to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. Thus, we have both freedom of religion and freedom from religion because they are two sides of the same coin.

Interestingly, the misunderstandings here can be found in many other myths, misconceptions and misunderstandings as well. Many people don’t realize — or don’t care — that real religious liberty must exist for everyone, not just for themselves. It’s no coincidence that people who object to the principle of “freedom from religion” are adherents of religious groups whose doctrines or standards would be the ones enforced by the state.

Since they already voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards, they don’t expect to experience any conflicts with state enforcement or endorsement. What we have, then, is a failure of moral imagination: these people are unable to really imagine themselves in the shoes of religious minorities who don’t voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through state enforcement or endorsement.

That, or they simply don’t care what religious minorities experience because they think they have the One True Religion.

Are you sure you are a ‘freethinker’ Rob? It doesn’t sound like you’ve done any research or checking up into the ‘world of skepticism’. Are you some silly Christian in the guise of an atheist? Perhaps to come online and say “oh, I’m an atheist but I think the monument is OK?”
Are you this twisted?

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

Myth:

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution.

That is true, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like “right to privacy” or even “right to a fair trial.” Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.

The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise. What the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution actually says is:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

There is nothing there about a “fair trial,” but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a “religious liberty” exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

The point of such an amendment is twofold.

First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government “establishes” a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

I’m going to stoop to Rob’s level for a moment: You fuckin morons.

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

I honestly don’t see what the big deal is about moving it to private property. I don’t agree with keeping it where it is, and minorities should be protected. The monument would still be displayed if it were moved.

The main problem I have is how disrespectful some of the people that want to keep it where it is are to those of us that want it moved. We are repeatedly called names and told we are not true Americans, or we get told how we atheists have no moral code and are out to ban god from anything and everything. It honestly disgusts me that people who claim to be supporting a fantastic moral code as outlined in the ten commandments find themselves justified to throw insults at others that are simply expressing their opinions.

Funny that people don’t agree with you when you try to push your views down their throat.  First you sue with other peoples money to have it removed, then you sneak it in a vote without letting the public know it’s coming.

The key to getting respect is giving respect.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

J_Riv:

Rob, you’re a frustrating person to deal with here.

Because I’m right and you’re wrong.  I’m not going to respond to your entire tiresome rant, but I will respond to this bit:

That is true, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

Yes, actually, it does.  I fail to see why the courts should make rulings based on things that come from outside the constitution.  If you want to extend the constitution’s protections of religion (because the 1st amendment was meant to protect it, not ban it) to include barring monuments from public property then seek to amend the constitution.  But don’t use silly lawsuits (paid for with other people’s money) based on extra-constitutional reasoning to try and cram this down the citizens’ throats.

I mean, I’m against the monument too (though I’m not one to get my panties in a twist about it), but I’m also for the proper rule of law.  And there’s nothing unconstitutional about it.

It should be a choice of the citizens, and the citizens have spoken.

I’m going to stoop to Rob’s level for a moment: You fuckin morons.

My goodness, you couldn’t even get that right.

Veg:

I honestly don’t see what the big deal is about moving it to private property. I don’t agree with keeping it where it is, and minorities should be protected.

But minorities also shouldn’t be able to dictate policy to the majority either.  Our system of government was formed to protect minority interests, sure, but it was meant to be balanced to the point where the majority wouldn’t have to suffer from a tyranny of the minority either.

None of our founders ever intended issues to be settled by an extremist minority that seizes the attention and gets things done that the majority of people don’t want essentially by throwing a tantrum.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

By the way, J, which one of your goons trashed the religious store?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Well, it’s obvious by ‘tiresome rant’ you aren’t an avid reader (ignorant), you certainly have no knowledge in the judicial disciplines, and you definitely aren’t versed in the medical fields. Your ad hominems and lack of intellectual basis for your put-down type of debate is not respectable. It is easy to be brutishly critical, but no one respects it, really.
Now the monument has been voted to stay, as of today. The next phase begins, then./

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

Well, it’s obvious by ‘tiresome rant’ you aren’t an avid reader (ignorant)

I am actually quite an avid reader.  That I find your writing tiresome is neither here nor there.  But how arrogant that you think what you have to say is so painstakingly important that I am “ignorant” for not reading it.

And I did read your entire comments.  Just didn’t find much worth responding to.

you certainly have no knowledge in the judicial disciplines

And I suppose you could fill me in on your lengthy tenure as a constitutional scholar?

I’m a citizen pal, and that’s all I need to weigh in on the Constitution.  Remember that the founders intended the laws of our country to be so simple that any common citizen could read them and understand.  We’ve gotten away form that, but your tacit assertion that I can’t speak these issues because I haven’t gone to law school or something is arrogant beyond measure.

and you definitely aren’t versed in the medical fields

Huh?

Your ad hominems and lack of intellectual basis for your put-down type of debate is not respectable

Lack of intellectual basis?  I’ve been quite up front about the applicable parts of the constitution, and would remind you that if you didn’t find my arguments on this issue substantive you wouldn’t be here responding (and thousands wouldn’t read this blog daily).

As for the put-downs, stupid is stupid.  Deal with it, cupcake.

It is easy to be brutishly critical, but no one respects it, really.

Brutishly critical?  Please.  You Free “thinkers” picked this fight.  That my criticism of your silly logic and patently whiny cries of injustice seem brutal to you just tells me that I’m getting my point across.

Now the monument has been voted to stay, as of today. The next phase begins, then.

The majority in Fargo has spoken, and now Riv will file lawsuits to assert his fringist, minority views.

Typical moron liberal.

I suppose you’ll want to use my tax dollars again to file your retarded lawsuit.  Because it’s ok for you to use my tax dollars to pay for your legal wrangling, but not ok for anyone to use your tax dollars to pay for a small monument approved of by the vast majority of the public.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’m unable to comment further in the face of such wisdom and rhetoric. I wish you the best Rob.

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

I’m unable to comment further in the face of such wisdom and rhetoric. I wish you the best Rob.

You lost the argument, now you’re taking your ball and going home.

Please don’t use my tax dollars to fund your stupid lawsuit this time, ok J?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

If only I were more involved in Fargo, maybe I could help facilitate the move. Unfortunately, all I have is my soap box here in Grand Forks. :/

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

If only I were more involved in Fargo, maybe I could help facilitate the move. Unfortunately, all I have is my soap box here in Grand Forks. :/

Well maybe you can help them get another wad of my tax dollars from the UND law center.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Often times I just rage to think that down somewhere else where I never go that there’s a monument that I will never read.  I mean what if I walked by and actually noticed it.

Oh the horrors!

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

No, I don’t think that would be the best move. I’m confident there will be a day when we reflect and see how outmoded the “ten commandments” of a supposed god really were.
So the question posed is really this: “Why do secular humanists and atheists— who are after all only a tiny minority in this country —insist on denying Christians the freedom to post the Ten Commandments in public places and to have neutral religious slogans, like Ohio’s motto, ‘Through God, all things are possible,’ put on government buildings and documents? Where’s the harm, as long as the government doesn’t favor Methodists or Catholics over Presbyterians?”

The answer to questions like these is based on a simple notion that, at times, we can all have trouble remembering. And it does not depend on whether one group or another is “tiny” or even in the minority. As Jefferson wrote, “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.). Only two concepts are relevant in these cases: 1.) U.S. citizens are not unanimous in their views on religion (and the differences are important ones) and 2.) Neither the majority nor any government acting on behalf of the majority has any right to make any religious decisions for any citizens. If a fundamentalist questioner can be persuaded of the truth of these two ideas, then it follows as a matter of straightforward logic that governmental neutrality regarding religion is necessary and desirable, as much for any Christian as for any non-Christian.

Posting a religious or anti-religious document is and assuredly should be every citizen’s right, and it is a right that is nowhere in the U.S. under any serious threat from government or the courts. But asking the government to post similar documents in a way that suggests that the government endorses the religious ideas included in the document is a direct threat to the same individual religious liberty. And of course it is not just “posting” that is a concern here; the 5,300-pound granite Ten Commandments monument that Judge Roy Moore had to sneak into the Alabama state judicial building under cover of darkness is an even more obvious example of what should not be tolerated (as the federal courts have now correctly ruled).

And it is nonsense to argue, as some have, that if the government does not directly pay for printing or engraving or framing a document like the Ten Commandments (whichever version is used), then posting it is acceptable.

For any public school teacher who reads this—or anyone else who gets involved directly in the struggle over using the Ten Commandments in any way in a public school—I strongly recommend getting a copy of The Decalogue: Bible Scholarship for Use Today. This comb-bound book by Brant Abrahamson and Frederic C. Smith is right on target, with thoughtful, scholarly discussions of the different versions of the Ten Commandments, the development of “The Golden Rule,” comparisons of ancient and modern history-writing, suggested activities, and more information for teachers as background. Probably few fundamentalists would accept using this in the schools, but that is part of the point. The book is scrupulously respectful of diverse views and, if it was actually used by a classroom teacher, should satisfy believers and secular humanists alike.

All of us (secular humanists, Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, etc.) are either in some way now in the minority about religion or could easily be in the future. The important thing is not who is offended or who has the votes—the important thing is to protect religious liberty.

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered
Religion is answers that may never be questioned

Minority rule is the definition of “tyranny”.  The tiny group of haters wants to impose its agenda on all of us, and that is wrong.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The fact is that the 10 commandments case has been settled by the courts.

The freestinkers don’t have a legal leg to stand on.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.