Atheist group demands Woonsocket to remove veteran memorial, after complaint

[rug]

Posted: Apr 24, 2012 11:31 PM EDT Updated: Apr 25, 2012 4:16 AM EDT
By James Swierzbin

An atheist group based in another state is demanding that a religious themed memorial be removed from publicly owned property.

The memorial in front of Woonsocket's number 2 fire station has stood since 1921, and honors the service and memory of 4-Woonsocket veterans who died in 2-world wars.

- snip -

Many veterans are especially vexed by the situation.

They feel that removing the cross, would be an insult to the 4-servicemen it honors, and they believe the request to remove it is ridiculous. Even if the cross's presence on public land is illegal.

http://www.abc6.com/story/17715483/atheist-group-asks-woonsocket-to-remove-veteran-memorial-after-complaint

[prefunk]

1. Instead of tearing it down, why not replace it with something more inclusive?

It would seem that the FFRF probably has the law on their side, so the city could save money from a legal battle by simply changing the memorial to something secular. That would be a win for the Constitution and a win for the veterans being memorialized.

[Goblinmonger]

3. That's a much too reasonable suggestion.

One which, I'm sure, the FFRF would be fine with.

[prefunk]

4. I'll bet that they would be fine with it too.

From what I know, the FFRF is not looking to rid the country of religion, they just want to rid the public square of it in the name of fairness, inclusiveness, and the Constitution.

[rug]

5. That's not what they're asking for.

Here's their letter.

http://ffrf.org/uploads/legal/woonsocket_letter.pdf

[Goblinmonger]

12. The letter does not exclude a non-religious memorial in its stead.

It just says that the current memorial is against the law and they provide adequate support to show that that is the case.

[rug]

13. Well, that's kind of silly.

[frylock]

17. what's kinda silly is that these asshats continue to erect these "monuments"

knowing full well that it's in violation of the constitution. how many rounds do we have to go with this crap before people stop using the damn cross as a memorial ffs?!

[rug]

18. These asshats erected it in 1911.

[Goblinmonger]

20. Well, "it's been around a long time" certainly means it's right, then.

Oh, wait, no it doesn't. That's actually a fallacy. One used to support slavery, btw.

[rug]

23. Equating this statue to slavery is a more egregious fallacy.

[eqfan592]

43. It was pretty clear it was the argument being equated, not the subject of the argument. (nt)

[Goblinmonger]

51. Yeah, that was what I was getting at.

Way to be a point-misser.

I was demonstrating your fallacy, not equating the two. But I'm guessing you knew that and rather than address the issue of the fallacy you committed, you went for "witty" one-liner.

[trotsky]

53. Not witty, just snappy. n/t

[Meiko]

25. It was built in 1921

Back when there was a thing called tolerance.

[trotsky]

27. Yes, the world was full of tolerance in 1921, wasn't it?

Well, it was tolerant of allowing the majority to do whatever it wanted, I suppose.

[AlbertCat]

40. Back when there was a thing called tolerance.

And "colored" water fountains, and "colored" entrances.

A very tolerant time indeed!

[eqfan592]

44. That stuff doesn't matter. So long as they can errect religious themed monuments...

...in the public square, then all is right and "tolerant" with the world.

[prefunk]

21. Yes, I know that.

I made a recommendation for the city as a counter proposal that I think that the FFRF would be fine with.

[Goblinmonger]

2. "Even if the cross's presence on public land is illegal."

That's a pretty strong statment of privlege.

And it doesn't matter if the group is from another state; the constitution is the constitution.

I'm waiting for the theists here to hop behind separation of church and state and applaud this atheist group. I'm sure I'll be waiting a long time. Much longer than the wait for someone to bash the group for fighting for the 1st amendment.

[mr blur]

14. Especially the Progressive theists nt

[humblebum]

19. Given the history of organized atheism, not likely. Many of us do not

consider you to be fighting for the 1st Amendment, but against it. Both sides of the issue can be a threat to the Constitution. We'll see how the court sees it.

[prefunk]

22. What do you mean by the "history of organized atheism?"

I wasn't aware that "organized atheism had much of a history in this country.

[humblebum]

24. Certainly not only in this country, but in the US there have been atheist groups for much of

the past century, e.g. The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, Inc -1920's.

[prefunk]

26. But just what is this "history" you are alluding to?

What is the problem you have with "organized atheism" in this country?

[laconicsax]

33. His problem with "organized atheism" in this country has to do with

state atheism in the Soviet Union and other communist dictatorships.

It's an old schtick that actually resulted in him getting temporarily blocked from this group.

[humblebum]

36. So when did that "old schtick" get me banned from this group? Or is that

just another way to silence criticism? I never said anything that I could not provide sources for.

[prefunk]

37. So are you going to answer my question or not?

Why are you responding to others but not me?

[laconicsax]

39. January of this year.

Did they give you a different reason for why you were blocked?

[LeftishBrit]

28. And what's wrong with that? Do you not approve of people acting in accordance with your country's

First Amendment?

[humblebum]

29. Absolutely. I simply do not consider atheist groups always to be

acting in accordance with this country's First Amendment?

[prefunk]

30. Are you going to answer my question?

I mean, you made a bold statement that leaves the reader open to interpret it in many ways. I would like to know just what you meant so we can continue our conversation.

[cleanhippie]

32. I think you have quickly learned just how easy it is for humblebum to paint himself into a corner.

So instead of answering, he will probably just slink away...

[prefunk]

34. Yeah, I am finding it interesting how he has responded to others since my post but not to mine.

It would seem I asked a question that he wasn't prepared to answer, I guess.

[cleanhippie]

31. Certainly you can cite some examples of where this occured, right?

[AlbertCat]

41. I ... do not consider atheist groups always to be acting in accordance with .... First Amendment

But in THIS case, do you think they want an atheist monument erected?

Does "secular" mean "atheist" to you?

[cbayer]

6. If there has been a complaint, then they should replace it with something secular or move it off

public land. Not that complicated.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Thank you.

We actually agree!

[cleanhippie]

11. !

[skepticscott]

16. And where are the religious "progressives"

in that town, the ones you and others claim are so strongly supportive of church-state separation? Where's the outrage at the blatant violation of the law among that group?

Nowhere to be found.

[eqfan592]

45. Thank you!!

Now if we can get a few more progressive theists to jump on board with this!

[Lawlbringer]

7. Does this reflect the beliefs of those who died?

I don't particularly care for big displays of one religion or another on public property, or the ridiculous lengths some companies go to in order to include every religion on every holiday. But seriously, if these men were Christian then I would have to agree that it's insulting more to the families of those who literally sacrificed all.

[Goblinmonger]

9. That doesn't get around the Lemon test. n/t

[AlbertCat]

42. if these men were Christian then I would have to agree that it's insulting more to the families

What does their religion have to do with honoring them?

[Lawlbringer]

57. Their families

Not from their perspective (not to sound too morbid, but they're dead...) but more than likely their families are Christians, too. So if they want to honor that person, then their religious beliefs would be one of the biggest comforts (whether you or I believe it would comfort us is a whole different story, it's all a matter of perspective) for them.

[Goblinmonger]

58. Then they can put a giant cross on their lawn.

It's not allowed on government property.

[Lawlbringer]

63. What if the memorial was redecorated?

I'm just curious, since it's been around for so long. I'm sure the people don't want to disrespect the memory by taking down the memorial altogether. If it's replaced with something like a big plaque? Should there be chaplains in the military? Should military cemeteries be allowed to have crosses, stars of David, crescents, etc?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, just trying to find a pragmatic approach (for my own peace of mind lol, it's not like it even matters) to this that doesn't offend the people who don't like the (probably poorly chosen) appearance of an almost 100 year old memorial on public property without dishonoring the memory or upsetting the family of those who died for the country.

[humblebum]

15. They should make it more inclusive, not take it down. Atheism/Secular Humanism have been

declared "religions" for purposes concerning the 1st Amendment. To remove the cross would therefore be a violation of Separation of C&S, by bending to the will of an atheistic oriented group like the FFRF.

[laconicsax]

35. Why sound logic!

Removing a religious display on public property violates the first amendment because the request was made by an "atheistic oriented" group.

[eqfan592]

46. Yeah, my thoughts exactly.

And of course, you all know what's coming now...

[darkstar3]

48. I think it's an envelope pushing experiment.

I don't think what gets posted is remotely posted in honesty at this point. I think the whole act is a way to push the envelope and see how far it will go.

[laconicsax]

49. Maybe it's performance art.

[struggle4progress]

38. FFRF has an uphill fight IMO:

they need both a material issue and standing

[darkstar3]

47. They're a group of taxpayers. That's standing.

The standing argument wrt First Amendment cases has been nothing but bullshit since day one. We are taxpayers. Our tax money is used to violate the First Amendment. That gives us standing.

[trotsky]

50. No surprise seeing that one leap in on that side. n/t

[struggle4progress]

67. Being a taxpayer typically does NOT alone confer standing. Moreover, being a taxpayer in Wisconsin

is unlikely to confer standing in a complaint against the small town of Woonsocket RI. Beyond that, the alleged basis of the complaint ("... a resident ... drives by the monument every day and is offended by it ...") won't produce either a material issue or standing, either

[Goblinmonger]

68. That resident has standing.

They paid the tax dollars to that specific government agency.

[struggle4progress]

70. Legal Standing Under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause

... In some instances, such as the Establishment Clause, an individual may wish to challenge a governmental action that injures the individual as a member of society. The individual may assert that injury as a citizen dissatisfied with a governmental action, as a taxpayer dissatisfied with a governmental expenditure, or as a citizen dissatisfied with treatment of other citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has construed the requirements to raise such cases narrowly, and individuals seeking to litigate such alleged injuries must meet both constitutional and prudential standing requirements ...

Under the Flast exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer standing, taxpayers may raise challenges of actions exceeding specific constitutional limitations (such as the Establishment Clause) taken by Congress under Article I’s Taxing and Spending Clause. The Court has maintained its narrow
interpretation of this exception, refusing to extend it to permit taxpayer lawsuits challenging executive actions or taxpayer lawsuits challenging actions taken under powers other than taxing and spending ...

... Under general standing rules that apply to any case, an individual must have an individualized interest that has actually been harmed under the law or by its application to bring that case to court ...

The Supreme Court has held that individuals generally do not have standing to sue based solely on their status as citizens with a grievance against a government action ...

Similar to the Court’s refusal to recognize standing based merely on status as a citizen in opposition of a government action, the Court generally has not recognized standing for claims that challenge government actions based an alleged injury to a taxpayer because of the expenditure of tax revenue ...

The Court has identified three general prudential rules for standing: (1) the individual’s interest injured by the government action must fall within the zone of interest arguably protected by the constitutional or statutory provision in question; (2) the individual may not litigate generalized grievances shared by a large group of individuals; and (3) the individual generally may not assert the interest of another to challenge a government action ...

In particular, the Court has specifically allowed taxpayer standing for claims arising under the Establishment Clause. Under the Flast exception to the general prohibition on taxpayer standing, taxpayers may raise challenges of actions exceeding specific constitutional limitations (such as the Establishment Clause) taken by Congress under Article I’s Taxing and Spending Clause. The Court has maintained its narrow interpretation of this exception, refusing to extend it to permit taxpayer lawsuits challenging executive actions or taxpayer lawsuits challenging actions taken under powers other than taxing and spending ...

The Court clarified the requirements for taxpayer standing in Flast based on this distinction. It held that “it is both appropriate and necessary to look to the substantive issues ... to determine whether there is a logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated.” In other words, for a taxpayer to have standing to challenge a government action, that action must be sufficiently related to the taxpayer’s interest (i.e., his or her tax dollars). The Court explained that taxpayers challenging government actions related to the Establishment Clause would meet its two-part test for standing under Flast. First, the Court found that “the challenged program involves a substantial expenditure of federal tax funds.” Second, the Court noted the constitutional history of the Establishment Clause and concern during the drafting of the Constitution that the Establishment Clause would be necessary to prevent abuse of the taxing and spending power in favor of one religion over another or religion generally over nonreligion. Thus, the Court held that Establishment Clause challenges could be brought by individuals acting based on their status as taxpayers because the Establishment Clause is a “specific constitutional limitation upon the exercise of Congress of the taxing and spending power.” ...

Standing to challenge actions related to the Establishment Clause is not always recognized in non-federal actions, though. The Court refused to recognize standing for a taxpayer seeking to challenge a state statute that required daily Bible reading at public schools. In that case, there was “no allegation that this activity is supported by any separate tax or paid for from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the cost of conducting the school.” The Court also noted that there was “no assertion that she was injured or even offended thereby or that she was compelled to accept, approve or confess agreement with any dogma or creed or even to listen when Scriptures were read.” The Court concluded that “it is apparent that the grievance which it is sought to litigate here is not a direct dollars-and-cents injury but is a religious difference” and denied standing to the claimant ...

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40825.pdf

"Taxpayer standing" almost never exists. It sometimes exists in establishment clause cases, but then it is very narrowly construed. Merely disliking a small wooden cross, painted white, attached to a 90 year old monument to a victim of WWI, which sits in a fire station parking lot and which evidently involves no significant expenditures and which has no obvious intent to promote a particular religious view, will not present a sufficient issue: nobody is going to recognize "taxpayer standing" in this case

[Goblinmonger]

73. "which has no obvious intent to promote a particular religious view"

You're joking, right? You do know it's a cross. And it ain't small (though that's not the point).

[struggle4progress]

75. It's a small memorial to a WWI casualty and several WWII casualties

[darkstar3]

74. Which of course does nothing to address my point.

[Goblinmonger]

52. Did you read the letter?

FFRF was writing on behalf of a citizen of that city. That = standing.

WHEW...that was hard.

[struggle4progress]

71. I think Rebecca Market really needs to get a life, if that letter

is any indication of how she spends her time

[Goblinmonger]

72. You mean she should stop researching those things

that are the point of her job? Yeah, what a loser.

[struggle4progress]

76. No, I mean this: if kitsch pictures of angels on place-holder "webpage under construction" pages

motivate her to write letters threatening legal action, then she's trying to fill some void in her life with really low-quality drama

[MineralMan]

54. Recently, I visited my father-in-law's gravesite at

the National Cemetery here in the Twin Cities. That's public property, most certainly, and there are thousands upon thousands of crosses there. If the four men memorialized in Woonsocket were Christians and buried at a National Cemetery, a cross could be used on their grave marker. This is not a general memorial; it is specific to the four men named on it. I don't see it as a freedom of religion thing at all.

I'm an atheist. I'm not offended by religious symbols that represent the religion of individuals, as with this memorial. Why would I be? While I agree with the organization in the case of that nearby school, with its religious banners on the wall, this is a different thing altogether, IMO.

We needn't go overboard in our quest to remove religious symbols from public places. Everyone should visit a National Cemetery, I think.

That said, if the city loses, all they have to do is remove the cross to secularize the memorial. You can see the memorial in the video at the link. It looks like it needs some repair work, too. It's crumbling. I'm surprised the city hasn't repaired it, if it's so important to people who live there.

[trotsky]

55. There are special rules covering gravesites and cemeteries.

Religious icons abound at Arlington, as they should.

I don't think this particular memorial passes the Lemon test, though. The general question I believe should be asked is, "Is it necessary to include the religious element?"

In the case of a gravesite, it is standing for the personal beliefs of someone who served their country. It's necessary.

In the case of a memorial at a firehouse, it isn't necessary.

[MineralMan]

56. It's a memorial to four specific veterans who died

in WWI and WWII. It's not a general war veterans' memorial. They are named on the memorial. I assume it's standing for the personal beliefs of those four veterans, just like the markers at the National Cemetaries. BTW, Arlington is just one National Cemetery. There are many of them, all with the same significance as Arlington.

[trotsky]

60. Thus my question: is the religious symbol necessary?

Are the remains of those four veterans buried under it?

[MineralMan]

61. Necessary? Nothing is necessary.

Given the situation, I assume that memorial was paid for mainly by the volunteer firefighters who wanted to honor their own, along with family and community members who knew those men. No, the memorial is not necessary, and the cross on the memorial isn't necessary. Neither are the markers at the cemetery.

I'm not offended by the beliefs of others, even though I don't share them. I'm also not offended by the expressions of those beliefs, when appropriately made. I am not offended by this memorial to four firefighters who lost their lives in war. Not offended at all.

[trotsky]

64. Alright, another question.

How do we know all of the men were Christians?

What if one of them wasn't, but went through the motions in order to conform to life in small town Christian America?

[MineralMan]

65. Of course I do not know the answers to your questions.

However, I'm pretty certain that the people in that town and their families did know. My only point is that I am not offended, nor do I feel my own rights are devalued by such a specific memorial to four people. It remains a matter of little concern to me what others believe. That's their business. As long as they don't attempt to coerce me into belief, such symbols are meaningless to me, so I'm not bothered by them.

It is as unreasonable for me to expect that symbols of the religion that is dominant in a society be invisible to me as it is for the society to believe that I should not disbelieve.

This memorial is on public property. It is no more offensive to me there than if it were in a public cemetery. I see religious symbols every time I drive my car on the public streets. They are visible from public property. Is that the next thing I am to be offended about?

[trotsky]

66. I don't think we can be certain of that.

What if one of them was gay? Do you think it's possible for someone to have remained closeted their whole lives at that time?

I think it's unreasonable of the government to empower or display one religion or its symbols over any other. Am I offended by the display? No. But I think it is a violation of church-state separation.

[Goblinmonger]

59. But the gravestones themselves are identical.

My uncle is buried there. It is just the emblems that differ. Certainly you can see the difference there especially given that the emblems offered are myriad.

[MineralMan]

62. Did you know that, until recently, no emblem was available for atheists?

That has changed.

[Taverner]

69. Keep the memorial 86 the cross