Freedom from stupidity: leave the monuments alone

I never thought I'd be going against the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union (MCLU), because normally they do wonderful things for our state, but this time they've gone in a direction I can't support. They're trying to get a monument of the Ten Commandments removed from the city hall in Duluth, MN.

As most of my regular readers know, I'm not much for church or obnoxious public displays of religion. I hate people who go out of their way to tell me I'm going to hell because I do or don't do something, and I've never been to church because I feel I've found different ways to express my beliefs that appeal to me more than a weekly mass. But these things don't mean I don't respect people's right to religion, and the main issue here is there's absolutely nothing offensive or intrusive about a Ten Commandments monument on public property.

Sure, the monument is there, but it's not a part of city law or government. It doesn't affect how the city is run. It's just a small statue on the front lawn outside the building. If someone wants to donate an equally small monument to Buddha or the Koran, I'm sure it will have a place there as well.

Hell, why not a monument to agnosticism, or to people who believe in God but never attend church, since those two practices seem to be most popular nowadays. The latter monument could say, "Church is only necessary if there isn't a good football game on."

The same problem with removing monuments is taking place where I live, in La Crosse, WI. A group from Madison called the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" sued the city to have a Ten Commandments monument removed from a public park, and they've won the lawsuit. It's cost the taxpayers quite a bit of money, and for what? Nobody ever paid attention to the monument in the first place, so why does the Freedom From Religion Foundation want to waste our money to have it removed?

Seriously, who has time to care about these monuments that nobody reads or bothers to notice? I've visited Duluth's city hall and La Crosse's public park many times, and I've never even noticed the monuments. Even if I did notice them, it wouldn't affect me or my beliefs, just like how seeing a monument dedicated to Buddhism wouldn't suddenly get me to convert to that religion.

What's next? Church groups not being able to have picnics in the park, for fear of church people talking to non-Christians? Churches having to take down the cross on their steeple because it can be seen by people who aren't on church property? As far as I'm concerned, the MCLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation are limiting the rights of different religions more than these monuments.

Having religious freedom in this country means everyone has the right to choose their own religion, but it doesn't mean all forms of religion must be taken out of the public's eye. Nothing in the constitution says that. It just states that all religions must be given equal opportunity. Even people who claim to have no spiritual beliefs have one. The belief they have is called atheism, and it's one that is recognized worldwide.

Instead of tearing down these monuments at the expense of taxpayers, the MCLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation should take the money they'd use for court costs and spend it on equal-sized monuments to donate to each of the cities for each of the different beliefs. A park in La Crosse or city hall in Duluth with small monuments for each religion and non-religion would be something people would notice, and most of us would be proud to walk past them or spend time around them. It would set an example of peace and harmony for the entire country.

It's time to give summer one last hurrah. Even though it's snowing in many places in the country, wouldn't it be worth it to give summer one last hurrah anyway? For all your harrah-ing needs, here's one called a "Lawn Boy". 3 handfuls of ice cubes 6 shots of vodka 1 handful of mint Limeade Sugar Put in the ice, followed by the vodka and the mint (fresh mint, the real stuff). Fill the rest of the glass with Limeade, and add sugar to taste. Drink archives

2/5 column rating (1 votes) Rate column 5 - Great 4 - Good 3 - Average 2 - Poor 1 - Awful

Reader Comments

page:   1 2

Bob      Apr 22, 2004 • 4:03am   The ACLU should stop shirking their duty and go a step further with the 10 Commandments: Since the 10 Commandments say "Thou shalt not" committ murder, adultery, perjury and theft all laws prohibiting these crimes should be declared unconstitutional. JB Benson Peterson      Apr 6, 2004 • 5:09am   Why can't the City of Duluth place a disclaimer of sorts near the monument, simply stating that the City government does not endorse or reject the text engraved on it, and encouraging people to excercise their Constitutional right to practice or not to practice religion? Also, the Constitutional section about this sort of issue is known as the "establishment clause", and is not intended to be construed as a separation of church and state...what it really means is that the government cannot establish a religion that the people must follow, proclaim, worship by, or pay taxes to...the founding fathers wanted to avoid a situation like that in Great Britain, where every subject was supposed to bow to the Church of England. Look it up and you'll be able to read it for yourself. Thank you for your time & for reading this. m      Feb 23, 2004 • 6:35am   The reason Duluth's monument has stayed on government property is because it is considered, by law, a historical monument. Even if people were to donate monuments promoting other religions, the city would not necessarily be required to display them. If anything, displaying them would be a first ammendment violation, being that the new monuments would not fall under the "historical" label. Dan L. Stock      Nov 18, 2003 • 10:33am   While I concur with the fact that their are definitely more sinister things happening than a benign monument, it has no business on government property. As you alluded to, in order to be fair they would have to put up monuments to every single religion and one to non-religion as well. Endorsing one religion over another, however passively, is a path that the government shouldn't even think about going down. Liz      Nov 8, 2003 • 12:37pm   Bravo Paul!You may not have had much religious training but it sure seems you had at least one good Civics teacher along the way. The founding fathers wanted us to have freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. Jojo      Nov 7, 2003 • 4:23pm   "One nation, under canada, above mexico, with liberty and justice for the rich"

page:   1 2