[Vision2020] Ten Commandments Removed:Religious Anti-Gay Monuments In Cit...

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Kai et. al.

It is clear we are not going to agree on this issue.

But what is disheartening and disturbing is what I perceive as your failure 
to debate with directness and honesty.

Focus, please, if you can, on the three questions below, from my post on 
8/4/2005 addressed  to you and the list:

"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?"

Now, how is this response below from you on 8/18/05 a direct answer to the 
questions posed above?

"Ted,

You specifically asked if I would support the Aryan Nations using the Kibbie
Dome for an event.
I answered, yes, as long as they were acting lawfuly.
That's a dodge??? How?"

I did not ask what you would do in this case, which is perfectly clear from 
the questions posed again above that quote word for word from my post you 
answered.

Again I state, Kai, it does not matter what you would do in this case.  The 
fact is the U of I would not rent the Kibbie Dome for the Aryan Nations to hold 
worship services.

Regarding your example of the church services at the Guevavi mission on 
National Park land, there are potential problems with separation of church and 
state in this example (what if Muslims want to build a huge Mosque right next to 
this church so they can also worship at this same national park?), as there are 
with the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, with prayers before 
governmental meetings of all kinds, with the faith based initiatives passed by 
the US Congress, and on and on.  However, different circumstances present 
different legal issues, which I won't labor at this time.

But how does finding another example of the government supporting religious 
worship services on public land answer my question regarding the problematic 
constitutional issues involved in the Kibbie Dome renting for religious 
services?

This does not answer my questions at all.  It is more obscurantism!

Ted Moffett

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050820/37c2d29f/attachment.htm