[Vision2020] Ten Commandments Removed:Religious Anti-Gay Monuments In City Parks?

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Kai et. al.

Kai offered the response below to the V2020 post below his response.  Scroll 
down to read.  

Did Kai dodge the central issue that I posed?  I think he did dodge the 
central issue again.  It does not matter what Kai would allow in the Kibbie Dome, 
the Aryan Nations church or otherwise. The fact is the U of I would never allow 
the Aryan Nations to rent the Kibbie Dome for worship services, if for no 
other reason than the bad publicity, thus they would be showing favoritism to one 
religion over another, Moscow's Christ Church over the Aryan Nation's church. 
 Thus the State would be placed on the slippery slope of endorsing one 
religion over another, slipping toward State sanctioned religion, something many 
constitutional scholars find unconstitutional.

Right?

The same basic argument applied in Julia Davis park in Boise when the City of 
Boise removed the Ten Commandments monument (see links below to info on this 
case) because to respect all religions who wanted to have monuments in this 
park would have meant allowing a religious based hateful antigay monument also. 

What is the major malfunction here that some list members appear to not 
understand this simple principle?  Disagreement is one thing, but acting as though 
you do not even understand what the argument is against your position is 
another entirely.

The list is going over and over the same central issue regarding the 
separation of church and state, with each side of the debate repeating the same 
arguments for their side in different terms, along with some other arguments I filed 
under "Wasting Bandwidth."

I suggest each side switch, Kai now arguing for a strict and rigid principle 
of separation of church and state, and Joan arguing for Jewish prayers 
mandated at all government functions.  This might open up the polarized repetition of 
unyielding arguments from either side to something new, at least a 
recognition of what the other side is saying.

Subject:    [Vision2020] Ten Commandments Removed:Religious Anti-Gay 
Monuments and Hiroshima  
Date:   8/8/2005 2:38:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time   
From:   editor at lataheagle.com   
To: vision2020 at moscow.com   
Sent from the Internet (Details)    
    
I never dodge the truth,Ted. And the truth is that Neo-nazi groups are just
as protected by the Bill of Rights as N.O.W. is. As long as the Aryan
nations is behaving in a lawful manner, then yes, let them use the dome.
(Remember a parade in CDA a while back?)No matter how hateful, racist or
disgusting a group's message may be, as long as they are acting lawfuly, I
will support their right to do so. You want freedom and diversity? Then you
better be ready to take the good with the bad, because true diversity has
the good, the bad and the ugly.

Subject:    Ten Commandments Removed:Religious Anti-Gay Monuments In City 
Parks?  
Date:   8/4/2005 1:51:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time   
From:   Tbertruss   
To: editor at lataheagle.com, vision2020 at moscow.com    
    
Kai et. al.

Why are you dodging the specific example in question regarding separation of 
church and state?

The specific example in discussion, which inspired this discussion on 
Vision2020 of the separation of church and state, was the Kibbie Dome being rented to 
allow Moscow Idaho's Christ Church worship services.

I pointed out that this example demonstrates how publicly funded property can 
be used to allow some kinds of religious expression and not others, when I 
pointed out that the Kibbie Dome and the U of I would almost certainly not allow 
the Aryan Nations Church to hold worship services in the Kibbie Dome.  

Do you dispute this claim that the U of I and the Kibbie Dome would not rent 
to allow the Aryan Nations Church to hold worship services in the Kibbie Dome?

The question is, if the government allows certain religions to use public 
property and not others, does this not present the problem of the appearance of 
or the reality of government showing a bias toward one religion over another?  
And thus is not the solution for the government to not get involved in 
allowing religious use in some examples of the use of public property?

Let's look at this problem from a different angle, viewed from how Boise 
handled the separation of church and state principle in a city park, which exactly 
supports my position.

Read at this web link about Boise's decision to remove the Ten Commandments 
from a city park.

http://www.cityofboise.org/mayor/news_releases/index.aspx?id=monument_move

Boise removed the Ten Commandments monument from Julia Davis park because, if 
I understand correctly, they were faced with allowing every kind of monument 
relating to every kind of religious faith if they did not, including allowing 
an anti-gay monument that a Kansas preacher wanted to place in that same Boise 
City park.  

A monument in the city park with quotes from the Bible about stoning gays?

Would you support such a monument, Kai?  Because if you really think the 
government should allow all forms of religious expression on all public property 
without discrimination, I think you would be forced to support the placement of 
a monument in the city park with quotes from the Bible about stoning gays.

I'm eagerly awaiting your answer.

Ted Moffett

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid9300.asp

>From the link above regarding Boise's decision to remove the Ten Commandments 
monument from Julia Davis park:

"The proposed edifice would bear the name of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old 
Wyoming college student who died in 1998 after he was kidnapped by two men and 
beaten into a coma. Police said Shepard was targeted in part because he was 
gay, and his two attackers were later convicted of murder and sentenced to life 
in prison. Phelps's monument would say Shepard went to hell because he was 
gay."
------------------

Vision 2020 Post by Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050818/fa30eafe/attachment.htm