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

Well stated.

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

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

But I'm glad you found a friend.

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

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

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

Psychologically, the constructs are all objects of consciousness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to DU.

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

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

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

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

BTW, welcome to DU.

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

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

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

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

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

And SCOTUS has consistently upheld that principle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

No government entity can do this Constitutionally.

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

It really is that simple.

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

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

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

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

And about secularism:

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

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

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

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

So your argument is just plain wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am done here.

must be taken down, they are indeed saying something.

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

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

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

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

He was not even present at the Convention.

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

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

It is all in the historic record.

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

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

Now I am done here.

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

You were done a long time ago.

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

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

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

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

Regardless, I stand by my posts here.

No more on this.

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

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

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

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

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

There are no other alternatives.

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

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

Now, you can be done again.

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

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

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

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

Ignoring theocrat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not joking, but the Goons certainly did.

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

As always, thank you for your support.

Goons forever.

From Jefferson's "Autobiography:"

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

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

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

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

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

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

them public?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

organization have this one.

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

Don't you remember? I do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=25196

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

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

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

August 4, 2012

BY JOSEPH FITZGERALD

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

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

That response came at Friday's press conference.

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

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

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

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

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

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