<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Kai et. al.<BR>
<BR>
Kai offered the response below to the V2020 post below his response. Scroll down to read. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Right?<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Subject: <B>[Vision2020] Ten Commandments Removed:Religious Anti-Gay Monuments and Hiroshima </B> <BR>
Date: 8/8/2005 2:38:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:editor@lataheagle.com">editor@lataheagle.com</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> <BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet (Details)</I> <BR>
<BR>
I never dodge the truth,Ted. And the truth is that Neo-nazi groups are just<BR>
as protected by the Bill of Rights as N.O.W. is. As long as the Aryan<BR>
nations is behaving in a lawful manner, then yes, let them use the dome.<BR>
(Remember a parade in CDA a while back?)No matter how hateful, racist or<BR>
disgusting a group's message may be, as long as they are acting lawfuly, I<BR>
will support their right to do so. You want freedom and diversity? Then you<BR>
better be ready to take the good with the bad, because true diversity has<BR>
the good, the bad and the ugly.<BR>
<BR>
Subject: <B>Ten Commandments Removed:Religious Anti-Gay Monuments In City Parks? </B> <BR>
Date: 8/4/2005 1:51:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:Tbertruss">Tbertruss</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:editor@lataheagle.com">editor@lataheagle.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> <BR>
<BR>
Kai et. al.<BR>
<BR>
Why are you dodging the specific example in question regarding separation of church and state?<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Read at this web link about Boise's decision to remove the Ten Commandments from a city park.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.cityofboise.org/mayor/news_releases/index.aspx?id=monument_move">http://www.cityofboise.org/mayor/news_releases/index.aspx?id=monument_move</A><BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
A monument in the city park with quotes from the Bible about stoning gays?<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
I'm eagerly awaiting your answer.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid9300.asp">http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid9300.asp</A><BR>
<BR>
>From the link above regarding Boise's decision to remove the Ten Commandments monument from Julia Davis park:<BR>
<BR>
"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."<BR>
------------------<BR>
<BR>
Vision 2020 Post by Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>