Tim Zastrow has revived the local issue of the Ten Commandments through reference to Alabama's Chief Justice Roy Moore's defiant stand against removal of a near-three-ton monument version. Moore has been legally suspended from office, as a result, by his own colleagues on his own Court. Apparently most of them can read and understand the U.S. Constitution. They abide by laws of the nation, particularly the First Amendment.
The United States is touted as a "nation of laws" and 'the letter of the law' has repeatedly been---from the U.S. Supreme Court---on the side of upholding Amendment #1. The language is quite clear, "Congress shall make no laws supporting the establishment of religion." Ask most church members; they will tell you that they feel comfortable under such protection. The Fargo City Commission made much of its "forward-looking" institution of the Human Rights Commission.
The City Com- mission members were "coming up to speed" in today's world: this body's mission is to deal with problems resulting from Fargo's re- markable population growth and the many citizen's diversity of races and creeds---in anticipation of bringing attention to any violations of rights.
As a matter of recent history, the Human Rights Commission recommended that the Ten Commandments monument be re- moved from the City Hall Plaza location. They recognized that this Judeo-Christian symbol was specifically exclusive and divisive between other religions, as well as those of no faith. AND, most pointedly of all, its presence there violated the precedent and principle of separation of State and Church.
Those who attended the two open meetings of the Human Rights Commission remember the rancorous exchanges between the pros and cons---a clear demonstration of the "power" of the 10 C monument to divide Fargo citizens over the simple matter of abiding by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Mr. Zastrow promotes a referendum to decide whether the mon- ument should be removed (or not). He is correct in saying that "the local group (Red River Freethinkers) pushing the issue" for removal "will rely on the 'technicality' of the current (sic) laws" instead of a majority vote by Fargo citizens. I said (above) that our nation is a nation of laws imbedded in the Constitution whose Ten Amendments came about to protect minority positions versus demogoguery.
The Bill of Rights is the central focus of the American Civil Liberties Union whose cases are litigated to hold firmly to the law. Its positions are seen by many as unpopular; it is denounced far and wide. But, the law is the law; and ACLU will defend you, too, when your civil rights have been compromised. Without such an organization standing for what it does, consider the evils which might have been done to us all.
Surely most everyone understands that it is illegal to murder and steal (unless you are the government) and perjure oneself. It is not necessary to "command" that we stop---none has yet. The issue of State vs. Religion really has to do with I---IV on the tablet. "I AM THE LORD THEY GOD, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME !!!" Talk about the promotion of an exclusive order---that is it! Any government, at any level, demeans itself when supporting advertising of such a directive.
Philip Mouch's letter (3 Sep.) stated the essentials of the argu- ment so very plainly and well----simply elegant.
(Someone has said that it was the genius of Man to have invented a monotheistic god. He is what He is. See Him in church---not on a civic billboard.)
Marcel Stratton
4 Sept. 2003