<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Kai et. al.<BR>
<BR>
It is clear we are not going to agree on this issue.<BR>
<BR>
But what is disheartening and disturbing is what I perceive as your failure to debate with directness and honesty.<BR>
<BR>
Focus, please, if you can, on the three questions below, from my post on 8/4/2005 addressed to you and the list:<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>
Now, how is this response below from you on 8/18/05 a direct answer to the questions posed above?<BR>
<BR>
"Ted,<BR>
<BR>
You specifically asked if I would support the Aryan Nations using the Kibbie<BR>
Dome for an event.<BR>
I answered, yes, as long as they were acting lawfuly.<BR>
That's a dodge??? How?"<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
This does not answer my questions at all. It is more obscurantism!<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>