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.

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

Don’t you mean “Christians,” instead of Christians?

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.

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.

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!(:^(

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.

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

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.

Rob, I re-read some of your comments above. I think I’m beginning to understand a line of thinking by you: that of the decision being of the people; and isn’t the government “we the people”? I liked that. If only things were so black and white.

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?

Rob: The phrase “we the people” is from before the formation of the US govt, as in “We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union…”. The proposition that the State and the people are identical is from Marx.
Our govt is subservient to the people(or it’s supposed to be that way), as exemplified by the statement “the government of the people, by the people and for the people”.
It’s a classic leftie tactic to use the courts to force their ideology on the public. Voting is anathema to them, unless they win. We still have not been allowed to vote on abortion.

So this is a case of being anti-religion? Hardly. Surprisingly, I am for religious liberty. BELIEVE WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT, DAMNIT

This “separation of church and state” is anti-religion

This argument is a common strategy among those who want to appear to support the right to the freedom of religion. They correctly point out that the government cannot be hostile to religion, but by twisting things around they make it seem as though attempts by the government to remain detached from religious issues is a form of hostility. In this way, they attempt to get government involved with religion and religion involved with government, as if that were a solution to what is in reality a non-existent problem.

What many forget is that the separation of church and state not only protects the state, but also protects their religion from government interference. And, just as importantly, it protects religion from being made trite and irrelevant by virtue of its involvement with the state.

In the first place, it is obvious even to most of those who deny that there should be any such separation that the state should not be allowed to interfere with churches. There simply cannot be any religious freedom if the state is allowed to dictate to churches what they may and may not teach, what permissible dogmas they can hold, and so on.

But what is not quite so obvious is how the state ultimately trivializes religion when the two get mixed together. The state is not permitted to promote particular religious doctrines as religious doctrines, that much is clear – but in the attempt to do it anyway, some really poor rationalizations are used. The most common is that we aren’t really dealing with “religion” anymore and that the doctrine, symbol, or words have magically become “secular” over the course of time.

But do devout Christians really want their holidays, their religious symbols and quotes from their savior, Jesus Christ, treated by the state as irreligious, secular components of society? Does that really make any sense at all? There are two choices: argue that these religious symbols and words are secular in order to get government endorsement, or reject government endorsement in order to preserve their religious nature. Truly devout believers can only justify the latter option – which leaves open the question of the true motivation of those who follow the first choice.

Secularism is used in a restricted sense today, but it retains a philosophical aspect in political and social situations. Secularism has always carried a strong connotation of the desire to establish an autonomous political and social sphere which is naturalistic and materialistic, as opposed to a religious realm where the supernatural and faith take precedence.

Under Christianity the state was treated as a necessary evil — something required to uphold public order, but ultimately an institution that served to corrupt people and distract them from their more important duties to the Church. In contrast, the Church itself was seen as the primary institution to which the state must remain subordinate. Although the state might be responsible for public order, the Church carried the more important responsibility of people’s souls and eternal fates.

This began to change during the Middle Ages as philosophers and theologians broke away from this Augustinian view of politics and government.

Thomas Aquinas argued that the state is entrusted by God with the necessary and positive functions of creating the social conditions in this world that allow for salvation in the next. The state is still treated as subordinate to the Church, but it is no longer so negative.

Such relativism did not come to dominate, though, because secular forms of universal political and social doctrines also developed. These doctrines treated humanity as more unified than cultural variations imply. Despite local variations, all people have the same basic needs and desires and thus there are a set of universal principles of economic, political, and/or social justice according to which economic, political, and social systems should be judged.

Christian universalism, which had been dealt a sore blow in the religious sphere by the Protestant Reformation, was sidelined in the political and social spheres by the challenges of relativism and universalism, both secular in nature. Neither subordinated the state to religious or supernatural interests and values. Both agitated for the acknowledgment of an autonomous sphere of knowledge, values, and action where human needs could be addressed by human institutions, free of the burdens of ecclesiastical authorities or interference.

Whistler (aka the Peanut Gallery)

Common moral decencies are found throughout the cultures of the world. Similar moral codes have evolved irrespective of religious belief or nonbelief, and Judeo-Christian morality is not unique. Scholars have found little if any original moral thinking in the Bible – the Ten Commandments were laid down by Hammurabi before Moses, just as Confucius stated the Golden Rule more than 500 years before it was attributed to Jesus.

On the other hand, liberal Christianity has been deeply influenced by humanism. The most important moral and political concepts of the modern era have developed out of humanistic thinking. You will search the Bible in vain for opposition to slavery or support for democracy and equality of the sexes!

…the Ten Commandments were laid down by Hammurabi before Moses, just as Confucius stated the Golden Rule more than 500 years before it was attributed to Jesus.

Since both Confucius and Jesus Christ lived before the invention of movable type, and were separated by time and geography, the fact that they both expressed the same principle is evidence of the universality of that principle, which inevitably leads to the conclusion that our entire Creation comes from a Point Source, otherwise known as God.

A casual observation is that your conclusion sound automatic and mechanic, and in no way are clear in the hasty conclusions you have made.

The people of Fargo, however ignorant, should at least realize certain American principles. This is a secular nation…

Uh,..wrong-o! This is a wholly Christian nation with firm Christian roots.

Sorry if that doesn’t tickle your bloviating atheistic fancy, but that’s the reality.

Niemann and robert, the way you write in such definite forms (sounding very confident) alludes to a state of close-mindedness. You NEED your beliefs to be true, or you’ll find less purpose.

Sounds like what you are doing here J_Rivs.

J_Rivs stated: “The number of people that believe or affirm anything brings no merit to the truth of it.” That is true, as I have always said that Truth to be truth must exist in all times, geographic and social settings, and if only one person knows it to the be the truth and 99.99% of all the people on earth disagree, it remains the Truth, that large rejection of it notwithstanding.

Rob and Robert108 are both correct that the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights contain nothing that would prohibit this monument from being in place and it’s being placed on the City Hall Mall should be up to the local voters to decide.

As a matter of historical fact: Mosaic law moved beyond the Code of Hammurabi, or any of the ancient law codes, because it is grounded in the worship of one God. The ethical principles in the law of Moses spring from love toward the one true God. Such love demands that one also love their fellow human beings, whom God made in his image. Moses thus talks about human sin and our responsibility to God in resisting sin. Hammurabi and other ancient law-givers, however, do not address this issue. Hammurabi’s law code is exclusively civil and criminal. Moses’ law code, on the other hand, begins with spiritual principles — love toward God and humans — from which the civil and criminal laws are derived. From its stress on the motive of love, the law of Moses demanded more humane treatment for slaves, gave higher regard for womanhood, and placed greater value upon human life in general. The priority given to such spiritual values made the Mosaic law unique among all the ancient law codes.”

As I believe Robert108 mentioned, the existence of laws such as a prohibition against murder only testify to the fact that all human beings held within their souls some common truths, which we Christians believe were communicated to every human being by Almighty God. Therefore, it would be surprising indeed if almost every culture capable of writing did not communicate many of these commonly understood and accepted Truths. The same would apply to Confucious having recorded a Truth and that same Truth being communicated by Christ, as both were recipients of these same basic Divine Truths; I say this regarding Jesus’ human nature as differentiated from His Divine Nature which latter Nature communicated those Truths to His human creation.-

J_Rivs: Lastly, Robert108 is right, because of what appears to be your anti-Christian bias you seem to be indulging in deliberate obfuscations, using every opportunity to attack Christ and the Church versus sticking to the topic of the thread. Which proves that you are an evangelical atheist.

Uh,..wrong-o! This is a wholly Christian nation with firm Christian roots.

Many evangelical Christian believe that America is a Christian Nation – founded by Christians for the purpose of advancing Christian goals and promoting Christian ideals. In such a scheme, non-Christians are second-class citizens at best who should be thankful that they live in a Christian society. Others disagree.

Brandon D. Hill, Guide to Christian Teens, writes:

The United States does not support any one religion, or persecute any either. While the majority of religious people in the USA are Christian, and they are protected, the laws of the country cannot be called Christian and neither can the Constitution. If the USA were truly a Christian nation, we would not need the Constitution, only the Bible. If a modern day Christian were to study some of the traditions and beliefs of early American Christians, I think that many of us would have many disagreements with some of their beliefs – for example concerning slavery, tobacco, and alcohol use – both for and against.
I think that modern day Christians are glad that the early Americans did not establish a State religion – because most of us would not want to belong to it.

It is unfortunate that Brandon needed to preface his comments by saying “Please don’t call me a heretic or unpatriotic – but rather listen to what I have to say.” He must recognize that many of his readers would tend to object to his claim that America is not a Christian Nation — which says something about evangelical Christians today.

It’s not as though treating American government as secular is incompatible with evangelical Christianity, after all Brandon not only understands it but sees it as a positive good because it guarantees equal freedom to everyone. Why is it then that others insist on arguing for the opposite?

Is the ACLU going to pay to move this? They are the ones with their panties in a bunch over it, they fucking well should pick up the tab. Otherwise, leave it where it sits.

“The number of people that believe of affirm anything brings no merit to the truth of it.” Is this your believe concerning climate variance?

How do you manage to breathe?

Another example of a universal principle, arising from Point Source Origin: breathing.

some will try to argue that atheists hate Christians.

I have met quite a few of them, but that’s beside the point. My statement was directed at you; it was specific, not general. Nice try at distraction.

The number of people that believe of affirm anything brings no merit to the truth of it.

The subject is the will of the voters, not philosophical truth. Nice distraction. I have noticed that those who fancy themselves philosophers are prone to distraction. They often lie while discussing the truth.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Rob:

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

No one ever indicated the two were similar.

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

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.

The number of people that believe of affirm anything brings no merit to the truth of it.

Ha! Personally, I believe ‘global warming’ is ocurring due to human effects. But! I was refering to that age old mode of discourse called ‘ad populum’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

So, how is “human effects” raising the surface mean temps of Venus, Mars, and the inner face of asteroidal material?

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.

What have you got against the will of the majority,

The rationalization for lynching.

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.

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?

The number of people that believe of affirm anything brings no merit to the truth of it.

True enough, but we’re not talking about “truth” here. We’re talking about a community that needs to make a decision about a monument. And the best way to make a decision like that is to just let the people express their will through a vote.

What have you got against the people voting?

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

I guess I’d like to know how a 10 commandments monument violates your liberty?

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.