Why are they wasting tax payer money fighting this?

Why not just a display that honors the dead without violating the separation of church and state?

This issue in this OP is about a holiday display and that they are allowing some religions to display so they need to have an open forum.

However, FFRF is pursuing a contradictory litigation strategy.

The letter is very clear as to what the violation is. They just never address alternatives because they don't care about them. They care about the 1st Amendment violation.

Its quite clear that there are two totally separate issues here, but that doesn't fit your agenda, so more obfuscation is expected.

It's refreshing.

the separation of church and state. Yours seems to be showing that the FFRF are assholes.

in which others were barred from interjecting. My apologies, your highness.

You were an ass in a safe haven group so you got banned. As the newest host of that group, your tantrums in here about it don't give me any reason to think the ban was a bad idea even though I wasn't part of the decision making process.

Be careful how you answer.

was enough to get you blocked. And what you did falls into the realm of being an ass. It's like the old geometry thing: all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

Something about an insuation that I advocated the murder of atheists.

I'm all ears.

And are you calling me an ass?

I feel no need to comment on, nor can I explain, their decision making process. My statement was that your tantrums on here are a pretty good indication that it was a good decision.

I said you acted like an ass. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

And now we know why you're on a roll today.

Awesome.

This article is about displaying a Christian nativity scene on public property.

Do you think it should be there?

Do you consider that to be a religious display?

then the opposite viewpoint should be heard too.

Open exchange of ideas.

So answer my question now.

But to answer your question, none of this crap belongs there.

The larger question is that there are far more important issues that need time, money and resources. Ultimately, it makes FFRF look petty and stupid, unless their goal is simply to piss off Woonsocket firefighters. That wouldn't surprise me.

There is a big difference here.

And it all ties together - I'm sorry you don't see that, and that you believe certain church-state separation issues to be "crap."

And the crap is is not separation, it's petty litigation. It's piss-poor politics as well.

It angered a whole bunch of southern white Christians (interesting how it's that group again here) who had voted Democratic all their lives. Wow, what a stupid thing Democrats did.

for those who need it.

Hop a plane and do your bit!

You said it was piss poor politics, presumably because it could alienate voters. If that's going to be your criteria for determining our political goals, you've got some big problems that you aren't going to be able to laugh off with your lame one-liners.

Embarassing hyperbole at that.

Keep the one-liners coming, rug! More confirmation that you've admitted defeat yet again. C'mon over to A&A and share... oh wait...

And that is the last place I would expect to find reasoniing prevailing over whining.

I am defeated by your one-liners! To hell with the separation of church and state, it's not that important!

Just for you:

With the firefighters, the government is the entity that placed the memorial there (in this case, the fire fighters which are a governmental actor). With the nativity, the government allowed a non-governmental entity to place it there.

So, when the government is the actor, the remedy is to get rid of what the entity did. If the entity wants to create a memorial that is not a violation, that is up to them not the FFRF.

When the government is allowing others to display on government property, they have to allow an open forum.

It's not that hard, really. I know you want to paint the FFRF as assholes, but they are right on this one.

They are assholes for thinking the 1st Amendment means something in ALL cases.

We need to understand that it's far better to skip out on the smaller elements of creeping theocracy and let them pass. I mean, it's not like any wingnuts constantly point to the little things like "One nation under god" in the pledge and "In god we trust" on our money as PROOF that this is a Christian nation and get empowerment for further incursions, right?

Justice demands it.

It was erected to honor Woonsocket soldiers who died in WWI. Do you know whther it was a government agency or a private organization that erected it? That would be the actor. The article doesn't say.

I would assume that they, then, are the actors and that someone didn't hack their web site. They government didn't open it up and say "Hey, whoever wants to put up a memorial, have at it." Regardless of who payed for it, the government put it up and they are then the actor. Have you read much about 1st Amendment law or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Look around any small town and you'll see all sorts of plaques erected on public property by all sorts of community groups. That doesn't make the government an actor.

Until this fact is established I'll disregard your assumptions.

And yes, I know quite a bit about First Amemenment Law.

existed before the Woonsocket firefighters?

If it is on government property, the governemnt has to make sure it adheres to the constitutional requirements of the government. Just like students speaking at a graduation. They are using the government's mic so the government has to make sure the speech is OK.

And with every post you make on here, you contradict your statement that you know about First Amendment law.

before the memorial. Both of those things mean jack shit for the 1st Amendment issues which you, of course, know as a 1st Amendment scholar.

Shall I call you a high school English scholar?

and I've taught Civics.

one state be removed for violating state/church separation laws and demanding that they be allowed to put something on public property here.

Doesn't that seem like a huge contradiction?

They should choose one side and stay on it, it seems to me. Either no theistic/atheistic references on public property or equal availability on public property.

What am I missing?

That the second request is merely to highlight the hypocrisy of that local government and its application of the law. FFRF knows perfectly well what the response will be if they win their case.

The firefighter one is a violation of separation of church and state. They want it taken down.

The nativity one is about an open forum. The government has opened the public square for displays and the FFRF is testing that open forum. If the government ultimatley says that the atheists can't display theirs, then the position will be that the nativity has to come down since they don't have an open forum.

I worded it differently in a reponse to rug above which might make it clear, too.