The Woonsocket Cross (from Humanists of Rhode Island webpage)

[struggle4progress]

Though the Humanists of Rhode Island have, as a group, taken no position on the recent case in Woonsocket of a memorial cross on public lands and the subsequent call for its removal by the FFRF, individual members within our group represent a wide range of opinions on the subject. One of the most erudite and nuanced views comes from William Santagata, who wrote the following letter to Woonsocket Mayor Leo Fontaine. Agree or disagree, I think you will find that William's thoughts are worth your time.

Dear Mayor Fontaine,

As a citizen of Rhode Island with a keen interest in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, I am writing to urge you to keep the cross memorial as-is in front of the Woonsocket Fire Sta­tion. As this complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation comes on the heels of the Cranston School Prayer Banner case, it is no surprise that the Rhode Island community will make comparisons between the two displays. While I believed strongly that that the Prayer Ban­ner was unconstitutional and advocated earnestly for its removal, I also believe that, due to the factual differences between these cases (namely that the Prayer Banner was in a public school, a setting that carries a different and stricter Establishment Clause case law), a comparison between the two is not apt and that the City of Woonsocket would be successful in any suit lodged against it.

The monument in this matter falls within the grey area of the Establishment Clause that is described by Justice Breyer in his concurring opinion in Van Orden v. Perry 545 U.S. 677 2005, which upheld a 10 Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. While “the government must avoid excessive interference with, or promotion of, religion […] the Establishment Clause does not compel the government to purge from the public sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious. Such absolutism is not only inconsistent with our national traditions, but would also tend to promote the kind of social conflict the Establishment Clause seeks to avoid” (id., internal citations omitted). The factual record particular to this monument aligns closely with the Van Orden standard and this case would play a key role should the City decide to stand its ground and preserve this historical marker.

“Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doc­trine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause” Van Orden; rather, the alleged constitu­tional infraction must be viewed through the eyes of the reasonable observer, a fictional person­age who “is the personification of a community ideal of reasonable behavior, determined by the collective social judgment, whose knowledge is not limited to information gleaned from viewing the challenged display, but extends to the general history of the place in which the display ap­pears” Capitol Square Review Blvd. v. Pinette 515 U.S. 753 (1995). The reasonable observer here would see the monument knowing that it is nearly a century old, that it was erected in honor of Mr. William Jolicoeur who was killed in battle during World War I, that Mr. Jolicoeur was a member of the American Expeditionary Forces, and that “Historians and veterans regard the marker as a living link to Europe’s allies, especially France. At the close of World War I, Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, a Frenchman often called Europe’s counterpart to General Dwight Eisenhower, traveled to Woonsocket to dedicate the stone” (The Call, “Cross in Group’s Crosshairs,” 23 April 2012) and that the cross memorializ­ing his death accords with his faith. In his Van Orden concurrence, Justice Breyer noted that “fo­cusing on the text of the Commandments alone cannot conclusively resolve this case. Rather, to determine the message that the text here conveys, we must examine how the text is used. And that inquiry requires us to consider the context of the display” id. (BREYER, concurring). Seeing the cross alone outside of the corresponding monument on which it rests would be to ignore the guidance of the Supreme Court. The reasonable observer would see the cross and monument to­gether as an honorable tribute to a specific Woonsocket citizen in keeping with his religious be­liefs, not as a coercive message by a government intent on endorsing the Christian religion above all others. Additionally, in coming to his decision, Justice Breyer considered the environment in which the stone tablet was placed: “The physical setting of the monument, moreover, suggests little or nothing of the sacred. <...> The setting does not readily lend itself to meditation or any other religious activity” id. Nor does the parking lot of a fire station ...

http://www.humanistsri.com/2012/04/woonsocket-cross.html

[trotsky]

1. Thanks for your continued and tireless efforts to bring this article to our attention...

and help put those uppity atheists in their place.

[struggle4progress]

5. ... Jason LaRose, Woonsocket resident and co-founder of the Ocean State Atheists, came out

against FFRF, publicly stating that the cross should stay, and even meeting with Poole at the monument to declare his stance ...
5/2/2012
VIDEO - Woonsocket stands united in defense of memorial
By SANDY PHANEUF, Valley Breeze Staff Writer
http://www.valleybreeze.com/2012/05/02/nsbw/city-stands-united-in-defense-of-memorial

[eqfan592]

6. You should take a look at the facebook page for OSA.

Somebody from FFRH had a bit of a dialogue with them, highlighting the various court cases where crosses on public property were ruled unconstitutional (and two court cases where they weren't).

OSA claims they will support the monument until somebody demonstrates that a cross on public property is an endorsement of religion. My question is how is it anything but?

[trotsky]

7. Thanks again!

[cbayer]

2. Looks like the Rhode Island group wants to choose their battles a little more carefully.

At any rate, it makes for interesting discussion of where the lines need to be drawn.

[Goblinmonger]

3. I would imagine that the RI group took a beating on the prayer banner.

The FFRF, not being based in Rhode Island, can probably rebound a little more quickly and fight the good fight.

[cbayer]

4. I'm sure you are right.

As noted in the OP, there are a variety of opinions within the group.

[SteveAhlquist]

8. Humanists and Atheists in Rhode Island are engaged in the Woonsocket Cross issue

My name is Steve Ahlquist, President of the Humanists of Rhode Island, and the uncle of Jessica Ahlquist, the young woman at the center of the Cranston RI Prayer banner Case. The group known as "Ocean State Atheists" is made up of two people, and can hardly be said to speak for the atheist community here in Rhode Island. The Humanists of Rhode Island is democratic in their decision making process and has not reached a consensus on the Woonsocket Cross, so no statement has been issued for or against it. However, in my capacity as a private citizen with my own views, I have spoken up very strongly in the press and on local talk radio about the cross, and about the need for church state separation. Far from shying away from this issue, both me and my group are wrestling with it, and we are neither tired of these issues or afraid of them.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Here's my view on the cross, with an actual, accurat history of it:

http://www.cautionchurchahead.com/2012/05/history-of-woonsocket-cross.html

[cbayer]

9. Welcome to DU, Mr Ahlquist and thank you very much for joining in this conversation.

Also, kudos to your very brave niece. I hope she is doing well.

[Goblinmonger]

10. Thank you for the reply.

I appreciate you coming in here to discuss it.

Your niece is a wonderful person, and I'm sorry for all she has had to go through.

[struggle4progress]

11. It is quite unlikely that family after WWI would have dedicated an unadorned circle

"Place Jolicoeur" in the middle of a road to the memory of a fallen soldier: that's simply not the style of the time

The fact -- that current plaque on the monument, mentioning the Gagne brothers, begins "Place Jolicoeur" and ends with the information that the Jolicoeur family paid for the plaque -- strongly suggests a previous installation with plaque at "Place Jolicoeur," with the Jolicoeur family supporting some redesign. Such prior plaque would not have laid flat, because that was not the style of the time and because, moreover, a flat plaque would be pointless in a traffic island. The existing pyramid is in keeping with a variety of earlier American monuments; so a reasonable guess is that some prior plaque was attached to the current pyramid or to some smaller prior pyramid that remains as the core of the current pyramid

[eqfan592]

26. Did you happen to see the picture in the article he linked?

If there was such a monument there, would the wreath have not be placed on or by it instead of what appears to be a power pole?

[struggle4progress]

53. If you look at the local terrain, that telephone pole must have be at some distance from the

monument, since the outcropping in the picture is still on the far side of the road from the monument, despite the road having been moved closer to the outcropping. The natural guess with respect to the telephone pole is not that a single wreath on a single pole was the sum-total of the memorial, but rather that poles up and down the road from the memorial site were decorated to solemnize the site

[eqfan592]

77. Sorry, but I think you're really making a stretch now.

The only logical conclusion is that if a newspaper was going to bother with a picture for their paper, that picture would have been of the memorial itself being decorated if such a memorial existed, not of a single pole being decorated, especially if it was going to be one of many poles. Also the text under the picture specifies "at Place Jolicoeur."

[Goblinmonger]

28. So you know better than a guy that is from the area?

Interesting.

[struggle4progress]

55. Other guys from the area are telling a different story than his. Here, for example,

is the fire department website:

On behalf of the Woonsocket Fire Department, I would like to thank everyone that has called or sent an e-mail offering suggestions or support for maintaining Place Jolicoeur, an historic war memorial, that was dedicated on 13 November 1921. The monument is dedicated to Woonsocket resident William Jolicoeur who sacrificed his life in World War I. Participating in the dedication was Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch of France, the Supreme Allied Commander of all Allied Forces in World War I.

The monument was originally sited in the middle of Cumberland Hill Road. Years later, after the Hamlet Avenue Bridge was re-constructed and the bridge and accompanying roads were re-configured, Place Jolicoeur, without physically being moved, was now within the confines of the parking area for Woonsocket’s Fire Station #2.

On 30 May 1952, the monument was re-dedicated in honor of the Gagne brothers, Alexandre, Henri and Louis, who were Woonsocket residents that perished in World War II. This historic war memorial has remained unchanged since. I would like to acknowledge Mr. Raymond Bacon for his historical expertise ... http://www.woonsocketfire.org/

[Goblinmonger]

57. That statement does not speak to when the cross went up.

Just that there was a memorial in 1921. Which Mr. Ahlquist acknowledges. Ahlquist makes it more clear as to when the memorial was changed to include the cross.

[struggle4progress]

61. Compare:

Ahlquist version: ... There was no monument at Place Jolicoeur when it was dedicated ... The monument itself is not dedicated to William Jolicoeur ...
Fire Station version: ... The monument is dedicated to Woonsocket resident William Jolicoeur who sacrificed his life in World War I. Participating in the dedication was Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch of France, the Supreme Allied Commander of all Allied Forces in World War I ...

Ahlquist version: ... It was in 1952 that the monument, complete with the controversial cross on top, was erected on the small traffic island known as Place Jolicoeur ...
Fire Station version: ... On 30 May 1952, the monument was re-dedicated in honor of the Gagne brothers ...

[eqfan592]

76. The problem is that the monument itself seems to disagree with the Fire Station version...

...and agree with the Ahlquist version.

PLACE JOLICOEUR
DEDICATED BY MARSHALL FOCH
NOV. 13, 1921
IN MEMORY OF WILLIAM JOLICOEUR
WORLD WAR I HERO

Followed by

MEMORIAL IN HONOR OF
GAGNE BROTHERS
WORLD WAR II
ALEXANDRE - HENRI - LOUIS
SONS OF BERNADETTE GAGNE

The first part specifically states that a "place" was in dedicated in honor of William Jolicoeur, where as the second specifies a "memorial" in honor of the Gagne Brothers. To me the plaque indicates that a physical memorial was erected at a cite that was previously dedicated to a different person, both now getting recognition at the new memorial.

[struggle4progress]

79. Here's a photo from 1952 when the cross seems to have been added:

If I understand correctly, you and various others contend that, prior to this, "Place Jolicoeur" was an unadorned traffic island.

[eqfan592]

80. That would indeed seem to be the case.

That is a picture of the monument being dedicated. You are making the implication that it is only of the cross. The cities lawyer seems to disagree with you.

[struggle4progress]

63. Compare further:

Ahlquist version: ... There was no monument at Place Jolicoeur when it was dedicated ...
< Ahlquist subsequently links to a youtube video of a city council meeting>
Woonsocket mayor Leo Fontaintain version (c. 11:15-11:25 in youtube video): ... We began a review of the history of the memorial going back to its original dedication 1921 with the original monument ...

[eqfan592]

78. Did you continue to watch past that quote?

"...in 1952 when the monument in its current form was erected." That's from the mayor. Later in the video, around the 25 minute mark, the lawyer for the city says that the monument was constructed in 1952. No mention even of "current form."

Your video serves to support the Ahlquist version, not counter it.

EDIT: Also note that this same video can be found linked from the same page linked here by Mr. Ahlquist.

Whats funny is if you keep listening to the lawyer he makes a statement to the effect that the current memorial was placed AT the memorial (speaking to the dedicated land would be my guess) but then later talks about the brother decorating the memorial for 30 years with a wreath, which is where the photo comes from, which took place PRIOR to the 1952 construction of the memorial that he specified, so it seems they are using the same word for both the previously dedicated land and the physical memorial that was later erected.

[trotsky]

12. Thank you very much for posting here, Mr. Ahlquist.

The information in this article is extremely useful. And yeah, your niece rocks!

[laconicsax]

13. Thank you for posting.

I wonder how many of DU's resident theocrats will intentionally ignore the part where the cross was erected during the mass anti-communist hysteria of the 50s

Welcome to DU.

[cbayer]

14. Who are DU's resident theocrats?

[laconicsax]

15. By their works you will know them.

Don't worry, you aren't one of them.

They're best recognized by their indifference to violations of church/state separation, opposition to enforcing church/state separation, tendency to categorize secularism as un-American, etc.

[LARED]

16. Nice redefinition of theocrat. nt

[laconicsax]

22. Thank you. You were a big help. n/t

[LARED]

23. Any time I can expose Atheist nonsense, I am glad to help. nt

[whatchamacallit]

89. Ah yes LARED

the Sky Bully worshiper who spends his time accusing 9/11 skeptics of being delusional...

[cbayer]

24. That's your definition of a theocrat?

I thought words had meaning.

[eqfan592]

25. I don't believe the intention for the use of the word "theocrat"...

...was for it to be taken in its most literal sense, but rather as a pejorative directed at certain members with certain attitudes.

[cbayer]

27. Does that seem ok to you?

Not long ago, we had a discussion about the term "militant atheist". While I think there is an argument to be made for it's use in some cases and there are even those that call themselves that in this very group, I was convinced that it shouldn't be used because it is offensive and received as a personal attack.

But someone else can go around calling other members theocrats?

That just seems wrong to me.

[Goblinmonger]

29. The most obvious person this refers to

made their desire for the US to be considered a Christian Nation very clear in another thread and used "facts are facts" as their support. It is pretty clear they want a Christian theocracy.

[Goblinmonger]

42. We don't have a national religion.

Did you miss that memo somewhere along the line. See, the founders thought a national religion was bullshit given what happened in England.

And, as someone already pointed out to you, why don't you push your Wallbuilders talking points somewhere else. This is a site for progressives.

[LARED]

45. I don't even know what Wall-builders is and we both agree

that the nation was purposely not founded on any religion. There is a clear difference between a non religious government and a religious identity of a nation. Christianity has been and still is woven into every seam of society public and private.

To state the US is a nation of no religious moorings is patently ridiculous. To deny that Christianity is the primary and foundational religion that sets the values and ethic of the nation is denying history.

[darkstar3]

48. What the fuck is "the religious identity of a nation"?

Identity is not something that can be applied to a political boundary. You are personifying the nation, and it really doesn't work.

[Goblinmonger]

52. Look them up. You'll love them.

Most progressive see them as toolish assholes.

"Christianity is the primary and foundational religion that sets the values and ethic of the nation" means what? If you look at the philosophers that the founding fathers looked to for our laws and governmental form, they were not pushing Christian morals. It is when we let uniquely Christian morals into our nation that the problem starts. Blue laws, anti-women's rights laws, abortion laws, anti-gay equity laws. Is that what you want for our country, because fuck that.

"woven into every seam of society public and private" Please explain then, since you say every seam of public society, how you then claim the nation was not founded on any religion because perhaps you have no clue what "public" means or perhaps you let your theocracy slip through.

[laconicsax]

32. No, I choose my words. I use theocrat to mean someone who favors a theocratic government.

[LARED]

43. Odd, you use those words directed at someone that wants nothing of the sort and in fact you used

a definition completely different for what you just said.

What is someone to make of your contradiction?

[laconicsax]

68. Edited: Never mind, you can't respond anymore.

[laconicsax]

31. It fits the definition.

Someone who is indifferent to violations of church/state separation, opposes enforcing church/state separation, categorizes secularism as un-American, insists that the United States is a Christian nation, denounces the part of the Treaty of Tripoli saying that "the US is in no way founded on the Christian religion," argues against banning prayer in schools, argues for inclusion of Biblical myths in science classes, etc. is absolutely a theocrat (ie someone who favors a theocracy).

Every item in that list is based on the idea that the secular foundation of the United States be replaced with a Christian one.

Do you care to explain how that bears no relation to the definition of theocracy?

[cbayer]

33. And we have members here that state all of those things?

The indifference to church/state separation I have seen. The other things you list, not so much.

Do you really think there are true theocrats posting here?

[Goblinmonger]

34. Yes.

One has been banned from the Atheists group.

[cbayer]

35. So laconicsax was calling out a single member when she spoke of the "theocrats on DU"?

[Goblinmonger]

39. No, I didn't say that.

I have a very particular member in mind. laconicsax is his own person making his own point.

But you seriously don't know who I'm talking about?

[cbayer]

44. I guess you are talking about Lared, but I am not sure.

I have never seen him argue for a religiously based government.

[LARED]

47. And you NEVER will nt

[Goblinmonger]

56. Seems a jury disagrees. n/t

[laconicsax]

69. That single member was an example.

An archetype, really, but still just a single example. There are others, and they're not at all difficult to spot.

[cbayer]

70. Who are they?

[laconicsax]

71. You want me to call out several DUers right here, right now?

Sorry, I'd like to avoid having a post hidden and get locked out of this thread.

[cbayer]

72. You already called them out.

You referred to the DU theocrats, but didn't indicate who they specifically are.

Naming names is no longer prohibited by the rules here.

If you are going to call out people, I would suggest you do it by name instead of hiding behind a non-existent rule.

Or you could stop calling people out at all.

If I were to make a blanket statement about the DU militant atheists, I suspect you would challenge me to name names.

[Goblinmonger]

73. I've had a post hidden for calling out humblebum

And it wasn't even really a call out but that was the reason given. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen.

[cbayer]

81. Pleas provide a link. I would like to see that.

[laconicsax]

74. How about you try to find them yourself.

Just read threads here, in LBN, GD, and elsewhere on the site about atheist billboards and challenges to state-sponsored religion. You'll notice that numerous posters do several (if not all) of the behaviors I listed. Some even go to great lengths to reframe challenges to 1st Amendment violations as he said/she said bickering to deny that any violations took place.

[cbayer]

82. How about you stop calling people names like theocrats unless you are able

to back it up.

I've read all the threads you are talking about. While I have seen some members minimize separation issues as frivolous, criticize activities of atheist organizations, and argue that certain instances aren't violations of the 1st amendment, I have never seen anyone advocate for a religiously led government. Not even close.

Because someone disagrees with you does not make them a theocrat. If you are going to make that charge, I think you should be ready to substantiate it.

Otherwise, it just looks like a witch hunt.

[Leontius]

83. Which is exactly what it is.

And is it not the claim of a certain group to say, 'no "link" then it is not true, it didn't happen'. And now you're told to 'find it yourself' that looks like hypocrisy, don't you think? The ease with which they change their standards makes me doubt some of their statements of 'facts' as well. Wasn't there an infamous senator in the fifties that employed a similar technique to attack his opponents?

[eqfan592]

84. I think the use of the word "they" is very telling right here.

And the implication that "they" are bringing about some sort of McCarthyism is also very telling. One of the more revealing posts on this thread yet, to be sure.

[Leontius]

85. The truth hurts doesn't it.

If you want to quibble with my choice of the word "they" go ahead I don't care whether you like my choice of words or not the facts are the facts deal with it. And the throwing around of unfounded accusations to call into question the character of opponents smells quite like McCarthyism as does the implication you try to make against my use of the word they but do keep going I'm sure your less sophisticated friends will jump on board with you.

[eqfan592]

86. LOL! Wow, did I touch a nerve, Leontius?

What's wrong, don't like people pointing out the ugly side of your thought processes?

Facts are indeed facts, Leontius, but I'm not the one having a hard time dealing with them.

[cleanhippie]

87. Considering that leontious has openly advocated for a Christian theocracy here in the US,

I'm unsure there is not an ugly side to his thought processes.

[Leontius]

88. Facts mean nothing to you as you have shown time after time.

You have no problem stating thing that are untrue and some people would just call what you just posted an outright lie but I'm not going to do that I'll just stick with untrue and disgusting. That you would post something as contrary to the truth just shows the level you will sink to is quite low and below any standard of honesty most would expect on DU.

[cleanhippie]

91. Uhm, yeah, if you say so.

You have a blessed day, ok?

[Leontius]

90. The three of you wallowing in the cesspool and you

have the nerve to yell,' look over there', too much for words to describe. It would be funny if it wasn't such a sad commentary on what passes for your standard to look respectable.

[eqfan592]

92. "wallowing in the cesspool?"

This post just served to confirm exactly how beyond the pale you've gone. It is indeed, as you say, a sad commentary....

[laconicsax]

93. Sorry, I'm not falling for your trap.

Juries still vote to hide callouts, I'm not going to get myself booted from the thread because you don't pay attention to what your fellow Christians say.

Suppose I call out everyone who I've seen advocate theocratic positions, then what? Are you going to demand that I post links to every example of those DUers advocating theocracy?

I'm not interested in spending hours upon hours doing that when it's a near certainty that you're going to disregard whatever I post and "forget" all about it in a day or so.

[darkstar3]

94. You're right, it's the convenient memory loss that is most frustrating.

[laconicsax]

36. Yep.

That definition I just gave doubles as a list of attitudes I've seen expressed on DU.

[LARED]

50. Let me clarity something

I am indifferent to what I consider trivial nonsense.

A cross on a monument dedicated to a small number of local residents on public property is trivial as it harms no one. It is not establishing a religion, especially from 50 years ago.

A few words on a coin is trivial.

I of course recognize and appreciate that other look at this differently

When the government is actively (even remotely) promoting the establishment of a religion I will join the chorus of those shouting about the 1st amendment.

[cbayer]

51. I would suggest that based on the definition given here that you are not a theocrat, then.

You certainly are a lightening rod, though.

I still reject the notion that there are theocrats posting here.

[darkstar3]

54. When the government is actively promoting the establishment of a religion, you won't notice.

You already haven't.

[Goblinmonger]

58. I call bullshit

Because the government putting up a Christian cross is certainly within the "remotely" parenthetical you give us and yet you have not problem with it. You will, of course, waffle on what "remotely" means so that you can still make your claims to fight but everyone reading along here knows where you stand. Except cbayer, I guess.

[darkstar3]

59. Many see only what they wish to see.

It's easier to do that if you've lived your whole life "inside the circle."

[cbayer]

60. Inside what circle?

You have no idea where I have lived my life.

[darkstar3]

62. Draw a circle on a piece of paper, and then draw a line somewhere else on it.

Look at them from your "outside" perspective. It is easy to tell the difference between them.

Now put yourself in the paper. Imagine yourself as microscopic and flat. If you were walking along the inside of the circle, could you tell the difference between that and walking along the line?

When I first realized that I no longer believed, it was this strange spacial imagination that came to mind. Faith, religion, and the trappings thereof seemed the circle to me, and I didn't know I was walking in circles until I broke out and was able to look at it from a different perspective.

The metaphorical circle I refer to in this case doesn't have to be religion or faith. It's the insular experience of the comfortable rut. Only when we are forced out of the paper and to view our pathway from a different perspective can we see the circle we were walking.

[cbayer]

64. Good exercise and I agree, but your assumptions about where I am have no basis in fact.

I've been in and out of many circles, both religious and not. So I reject your statement that I have always been in the circle.

I have not.

There are probably quite a few circles that I have been in or out of which you have no perspective at all. I've probably made more radical transitions than just about anyone you know. And I'm still making them.

So please don't make assumptions about my comfortable ruts.

[darkstar3]

65. Really? Than anyone I know? How about myself?

Take any topic, be it religious, political, scientific, artistic, dietary...any topic, and I've run the spectrum from right to left in my life. But that couldn't be further from the point.

I'm not assuming about your comfortable ruts. I'm basing my observation on your writings, specifically the ones where you deny seeing so many things about certain religions, about other DUers, about political entanglements with religion, and more. I'm basing my observation on the fact that so often others here call you out on the basis of you denying the experience of others because it doesn't mesh with your own.

I haven't made an assumption, but rather drawn a conclusion.

[cbayer]

66. Perhaps I see some things that you don't, as you most likely see some things

that I don't.

I base all my opinions on my own knowledge and experience. Doing that doesn't dismiss the perspective of others. If that's how it comes across, I am being misread.

Others here primarily call me out because of the assumptions they have had made. These are not conclusions, because only a couple of people here actually have the facts. TMO being my father set the stage and many people just decorated it in their own minds.

[darkstar3]

67. So now you're a victim of guilt by association?

You really think it has nothing to do with your own posts, but rather with being associated unfairly with someone else? That is...I don't even have words...

Wow.

[eqfan592]

75. Yeah, that's a load of crap.

"I of course recognize and appreciate that other look at this differently"

Yes, by calling it "trivial nonsense" and saying a variety of disparaging things about those who bring up such issues. Clearly you "appreciate" the viewpoints of others.

"When the government is actively (even remotely) promoting the establishment of a religion I will join the chorus of those shouting about the 1st amendment. "

You missed the boat on that one already, and I doubt you are interested in trying to catch up.

[eqfan592]

20. Thank you very much for this information.

And for joining us here on our forum! I hope we see more of you around these parts!

I also hope Jessica is doing well!

[LARED]

17. Thanks for posting this article. nt

[struggle4progress]

18. Perhaps you should thank Steve Ahlquist

[LARED]

19. Sure no problem, any particular reason you feel compelled to give that advice?

[struggle4progress]

21. He posted the article I linked on the website I linked to, and he's a newbie here upthread,

where I in my usual graceless way am arguing that I doubt his version of the facts

So "give credit where credit is due" should only seem fair

[Goblinmonger]

30. Careful, though

the Ahlquist family is "notorious" for fighting against that Christian nation you so desperately want.

[LARED]

37. I think you mean tearing down the existing Christian nation

I have no problems with anyone expressing their values and fighting for them.

[darkstar3]

38. That is some WallBuilders bullshit right there.

[LARED]

46. Again I don't know what Wallbuilders is. Never heard of them.

[darkstar3]

49. I sincerely doubt that, since you spout their primary talking points.

[Goblinmonger]

40. WE AREN'T A CHRISTIAN NATION!

Get over it already.