Dear Mr. Zaleski:
Red River Freethinkers recently asked the City of Fargo to remove from public property the Ten Commandments monument standing near City Hall. The monument was donated by the the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1958. It has stood there for 43 years without objection, requires no upkeep, and presents no physical danger. And the request is merely removal from public property. If it were moved to private property, say, one block west to the Forum's main entrance, there would be no issue. So what's the point here?The point, of course, has nothing to do with the six-foot granite tablet as such. The issue is the principle of separation of church and state, which says that government shall be neutral with respect to religious belief. Neutrality does not mean an impossible attempt to support all religious traditions equally, but to support none. The monument represents a specific religious tradition (Judeo-Christian) and should be removed.
A legal precedent was set this past year. In 1998, residents of Elkhart, Ind. filed suit against the city over a similar display. The residents initially lost, then won in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined a further appeal by the city last May. Fargo city officials were then asked if the monument would be removed, and the response was that nothing would be done unless someone objected [Forum, May 30]. We object.
The orderly presentation of strongly held and widely divergent views on this issue to the Fargo Human Relations Commission at its recent August 1 meeting was a superb example of democracy in action. Let me address one complication: Marvin Setness, the Patriotic Bodies representative on the Remodeling Committee for the Civic Center, pointed out that the whole public area in question was originally purchased to be a Veterans Memorial. I do not know if his concern and our church-state issue conflict, but we certainly acknowledge his point as relevant, especially as our treasurer, newsletter editor, former chair, and other members are veterans.
Some will say that we are troublemakers, wasting time in pushing an issue that is too divisive for resolution. We say the divisiveness is already present in the community and the public discussion of divergent views can only be for the better. Furthermore, given the city's understandable but inconclusive response to the recent court decisions, the question of moving the monument needs to be asked. We ask it.
As for the recent Forum Commentary "Freethinkers pander to their biases", let me state that we, like the members of any group, will express ourselves on issues important to us with various levels of ability and emotion. But we support a basic principle of this country, the separation of church and state, we support the religious tolerance that is the very core of that principle, and we support the open discussion that such tolerance permits. If that's your notion of bias, then count us biased, one and all, and proud of it.
Davis Cope, Secretary, Red River Freethinkers
August 3, 2001