Atheists Target WWI Cross Memorial at Rhode Island Fire Department

[JebSanderson]

Atheists Target WWI Cross Memorial at Rhode Island Fire Department

The New American
Written by Dave Bohon
Friday, 27 April 2012 17:44

A cross that has graced a World War I memorial at a fire department in Rhode Island for over 90 years has become the latest target of the atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The group charges that the cross, perched atop the memorial at a fire stations in Woonsocket, a suburb of Providence, amounts to a religious symbol and, thus, is unconstitutionally impermissible on public property in the God-fearing community.

In an exhaustive seven-page letter to Woonsocket’s mayor, Leo Fontaine, FFRF objected to the “unconstitutional Latin cross” on the memorial in the fire station’s parking lot, as well as the “unconstitional religious postings on the Woonsocket Fire Department website.” Most specifically, the anti-religious group complained about the web content, is a page containing “a prayer that makes reference to a monotheistic god and a picture of an angel.”

“It is unlawful for a city government and its agencies to display patently religious symbols and messages on city property,” the atheist group soberly advised. “The website impermissibly demonstrates a preference for religion over non-religions,” and the Latin cross on the memorial “demonstrates Woonsockets preference for Christianity over other religions and nonreligion.”

These things ought not to be, pontificated the atheist apostles. “Such government endorsements of religion run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution,” the group notified Fontaine.

The atheists “requested” that the city “immediately remove the cross from the fire station parking lot and remove the prayer and angel from the Woonsocket Fire Department website.”

According to the Woonsocket Call newspaper, “the main bone of contention is a monument erected in memory of William Jolicoeur, a member of the American Expeditionary Forces who was killed in France during World War I. Unveiled on Nov. 13, 1921, the monument was rededicated in May 1952 in honor of three brothers, Alexandre, Henri and Louis Gagne, all killed in World War II.”

Continued the newpaper:

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. Historian Ray Bacon, co-director of the museum of work and culture, says the occasion was Foch’s opportunity to pay his respects to Americans who died in the Great War. City residents repaid the tribute by naming Foch Avenue in honor of the French commander.

Richard W. Schatz, president of the United Veterans Council of Woonsocket, told the paper that “I think it’s an outrage they want to take down a cross put there in 1921 that has to do with soldiers who gave their lives to their country. To me this is just another type of terrorist attack on this country.” He added that “Christianity plays a big part in this country, [and when] you start taking Christianity out of the country, that’s when you start to bring the country down.”

The “unconstitutional religious postings” to which the FFRF objected comes mainly in the form of a copy of “The FireFighters Prayer,” that reads:

When I am called to duty, God, wherever flame may rage,
Give me strength to save some life, whatever be its age.
Help me embrace a little child, before it is too late,
Or save an older person from the horror of that fate.
Enable me to be alert and hear the weakest shout,
And quickly and efficiently, to put the fire out.
I want to fill my calling, and to give the best in me,
To guard my every neighbor, and protect his property.
And if according to my fate, I am to lose my life,
Please Bless with your protecting hand, my children and my wife.

According to The Call newspaper, Mayor Fontaine and city officials have risen to the FFRF’s threat with the level of respect such a challenge is due. “I have no intention of removing the cross under any circumstances,” Fontaine was quoted as saying. He noted that the monument has been “sitting there for 97 years and no one had a problem with it. And now someone from Madison, Wisconsin is so concerned?”

The city council’s president, John Ward, suggested that contrary to FFRF’s insistence that someone from the community complained to the group about the supposedly religious display, it is more likely the atheist group simply stumbled upon the memorial while canvassing communities around the nation looking for establishment clause “violations” to litigate for profit. Woonsocket is one of those target communities from which FFRF hopes to ferret a legal fee via a legal complaint. “It’s a jobs program for lawyers with nothing better to do,” said Ward. “I have serious doubts that someone actually reached out to them to file a complaint.”

Nonetheless, when push comes to shove it looks as if the atheist group may succeed in bluffing the community into removing its cherished memorial. While Ward “agrees with those who say the cross is more of a historical symbol — like the grave markers at Normandy, France,” reported Fox News, “he said the financially struggling city can’t afford to get dragged into a legal battle.” He conceded that he “would not vote to pay to defend” the memorial.

FFRF president, who has been at the bottom of scores of attacks against communities like Woonsocket over the years, said she anticipated that the city would quickly cave in to her group’s threats. “We expect to prevail without going to court,” she said.

Groups like FFRF have found a rich harvest of potential First Amendment legal cases to mine in Rhode Island. In January a federal judge ruled that a prayer banner at a high school in Cranston must be removed after the ACLU sued on behalf of one of a supposedly atheist student, Jessica Ahlquist.

FFRF got a piece of the media attention over the case after its leaders said Ahlquist’s actions inspired them to launch the “Atheists in Foxholes Support Fund” and award her a $10,000 scholarship. According to Fox News, FFRF even “has a complaint pending with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights after a Cranston florist refused to deliver flowers from the group to Ahlquist.”

[LimitedGovernment]

Doesn't this belong in the religion forum?

Also, I don't see why this is an issue. If it's public property, religious artifacts don't belong. If it's private property, do whatever. Tradition isn't a good justification for anything.

[JebSanderson]

Doesn't this belong in the religion forum?

Also, I don't see why this is an issue. If it's public property, religious artifacts don't belong. If it's private property, do whatever. Tradition isn't a good justification for anything.

So the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to public property? Where does the Constitution ban religion and religious displays on public property?

[dmo069]

So the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to public property? Where does the Constitution ban religion and religious displays on public property?

The establishment clause.

[JebSanderson]

The establishment clause.

This is not establishing a state religion. You've been fooled by the progressives into believing that the establishment clause bans all religious displays and expression in public.

[LimitedGovernment]

So the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to public property? Where does the Constitution ban religion and religious displays on public property?

"Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Private speech and press are not to be abridged by law, and no law (government decree) can establish association between public (government) property or business and a religious view.

This is not establishing a state religion. You've been fooled by the progressives into believing that the establishment clause bans all religious displays and expression in public.

You're misunderstanding the words "establishment", "religion", and "public" as used in Constitutional law. The only reason that no one challenged public religious displays before was that non-religious worldviews were suppressed. The same trend was true for slavery. Jefferson had originally written an anti-slavery line in the Declaration of Independence that was removed from the final product.

[JebSanderson]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The display of a cross or any other religious symbol is not an establishment of religion by Congress.

The banning of religious displays and symbols is a prohibition on the free exercise of religion and abridgment of freedom of speech.

[LimitedGovernment]

Again, you aren't demonstrating an understanding of the legal terminology in use here.

It would be a prohibition if no one was allowed to speak about their religious views or bring impermanent symbols of their faith to a public forum dedicated to free expression. It is not a prohibition of private rights to disallow governmental bodies to use religious artifacts in matters if official business - such as grave markers, national monuments, and public squares. "Officiality" is the difference - it is the "establishment" part of the clause that is important.

[DerailingDaTrain]

So the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to public property? Where does the Constitution ban religion and religious displays on public property?

..

[James Madison]

The establishment clause.

You do realize what 'an establishment of religion' is, right? It's a physical [B]establishment[B], i.e. the Vatican or the Church of England. The Founders came from a continent where governments had taken over religion and used it to oppress the public. The establishment clause was meant to forbid the government from creating a national church or from linking up an already existing establishment. It was never meant to exclude religion from public life.

[JebSanderson]

You do realize what 'an establishment of religion' is, right? It's a physical [B]establishment[B], i.e. the Vatican or the Church of England. The Founders came from a continent where governments had taken over religion and used it to oppress the public. The establishment clause was meant to forbid the government from creating a national church or from linking up an already existing establishment. It was never meant to exclude religion from public life.

+rep

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Poor atheists, that memorial for the troops has been shoving that religion down their throats for over a century. Oh my!

[dmo069]

Freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.

There you go. FIFY

[JebSanderson]

There you go. FIFY

No one is forcing you to practice or support any religion and you have no right to limit someone else's religious observance and expression, even on public property.

[LimitedGovernment]

You do realize what 'an establishment of religion' is, right? It's a physical [B]establishment[B], i.e. the Vatican or the Church of England. The Founders came from a continent where governments had taken over religion and used it to oppress the public. The establishment clause was meant to forbid the government from creating a national church or from linking up an already existing establishment. It was never meant to exclude religion from public life.

What is your definition of religion? If the definition is a set of beliefs about religion, which is obviously the intent of the legal letter, then we should neither have a statement such as "In God We Trust" on the dollar, nor "There Is No God". All parallels to this case should be judged the same way.

If you have a different legal definition, I would like to hear it and why you hold to it. If your definition allows for atheists to set up public symbols that display lack of belief, and religious symbols displaying belief, then I would like to know why you would prefer a reading that lends to such divisive public symbolism over following a legal reading that excludes this diviseness and remains fair.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I think as with any area, you have to use common sense to understand the intentions behind certain actions.

Was the goal of the memorial to promote religion? No, it was to honor soldiers.

We must look at intentions, otherwise we open a pandora's box. Will we prohibit government employees from having a religion because they get paid with tax money? Again, we need common sense.

[Revolution9]

Close minded idiots look at something and associate their idiocies with it. It is much more than a Christian symbol. It is the symbol of the Universal Horizon. But since they are a bunch of close minded $#@! disturbers hell bent on ESTABLISHING their religion through legal edict they are gonna get all dogmatic and exoteric and narrow minded. You become what you fight. They use the government to enforce their POV on everybody. Somebody get these clowns some porn so they have something else to jerk off about instead of standing in front of a fire station getting power boners because they are gonna wreck historic architecture in the name of their bloody little jihad..

Rev9

[dmo069]

No one is forcing you to practice or support any religion and you have no right to limit someone else's religious observance and expression, even on public property.

This is a permanent display, maintained by the government on public property. This crosses the line of separation of church and state.

[LimitedGovernment]

I think as with any area, you have to use common sense to understand the intentions behind certain actions.

Was the goal of the memorial to promote religion? No, it was to honor soldiers.

We must look at intentions, otherwise we open a pandora's box. Will we prohibit government employees from having a religion because they get paid with tax money? Again, we need common sense.

I agree that we need to examine intentions. That's why I brought up the issue of how you interpret the establishment clause - because it seems like you're ignoring the intents of it; those intents being to protect people from government usurping power over their religious beliefs, and from being persecuted and excluded by people who have different worldviews. Using religious symbols in official government business is exclusionary.

If the intent of a memorial is to honor people, a symbol that does not represent what some of them believe and what none of them entered service to uphold (the private religious beliefs of Christians) is inappropriate.

Your question about employees is either an intentional strawman or the result of your refusal to engage with the legal meaning of the establishment clause. Either way, I am saddened.

The reason that atheist groups like the FFRF are actively engaging on this issue is that the symbols used in official capacities help to maintain the power of whomever those symbols represent. As an atheist who has been told that I shouldn't be considered a citizen of the US because of my lack of belief, I completely understand the FFRF's work.

If I served in a military force that was later commemorated by a cross, I would be very upset because the display would not represent me and would stand in concept for what I am against (the use of religious symbols in official affairs). According to what people in opposition to the FFRF have said to me, those who want the cross to stay are upset for an entirely different reason - which is that they want symbols representing their beliefs to be freely prevalent.

Why do people overlook the difference between these two issues?

One stance supports the idea of democratic republicanism - that neither the minority or majority should have greater power. The other supports the idea of mob rule.

Aren't most of you here against mob rule?

[James Madison]

What is your definition of religion? If the definition is a set of beliefs about religion, which is obviously the intent of the legal letter, then we should neither have a statement such as "In God We Trust" on the dollar, nor "There Is No God". All parallels to this case should be judged the same way.

"In God We Trust" was just Cold War propaganda meant to trick Americans into giving up their rights and into fighting no-win wars against an impossible to define boogey-man (sounds familiar).

As for a definition of 'religion'. Who cares? The first amendment forbids any law respecting an 'establishment of religion', again a physical body like the Vatican or the Church of England.

If it were, as you imply, to stop government from including religion in any public ceremony, event, or place, it would simply read, "Congress shall make no law respecting a single religion, nor shall it prohibit the free exercise thereof." By including the word 'establishment', it's clear this phrase was meant to forbid government in establishing a state church (Church of England) or forming alliances with the Vatican (a church/state hybrid).

[WilliamC]

As an agnostic atheist nothing angers me more than gnostic atheists who trash on religion because they don't feel it within their own hearts.

I know what these SOB's are thinking because I actually think this way myself, there is essentially nothing in me that believes in any sort of personal immortality or that God is but another name for Universe; i.e. everything that does and can possibly exist.

But I don't pretend to be able to tell anyone else what or how they should believe, and I'll stand with any religious folks who are tolerant enough to allow me to even though I do not believe as they do.

Some of my best conversations here on RPF have been with strongly religious individuals who are strong in their faith, and my closest friends in real life are religious too. If ya'll recall there was a certain Revolutionary Father, one Thomas Paine, who was almost certainly an atheist and was persecuted for it. I don't claim to be Thomas Paine reincarnated (since I am not religious) but I do identify with him. I really need to read up on him some more...

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

[LimitedGovernment]

"In God We Trust" was just Cold War propaganda meant to trick Americans into giving up their rights and into fighting no-win wars against an impossible to define boogey-man (sounds familiar).

As for a definition of 'religion'. Who cares? The first amendment forbids any law respecting an 'establishment of religion', again a physical body like the Vatican or the Church of England.

If it were, as you imply, to stop government from including religion in any public ceremony, event, or place, it would simply read, "Congress shall make no law respecting a single religion, nor shall it prohibit the free exercise thereof." By including the word 'establishment', it's clear this phrase was meant to forbid government in establishing a state church (Church of England) or forming alliances with the Vatican (a church/state hybrid).

I didn't imply that the Constitution prohibits the inclusion of religion in public ceremonies, events, or places. I clearly defined the my posts above exactly what the legal meaning prohibits and does not prohibit. Either you are not reading my posts carefully, or you are purposely trying to misrepresent me. Either way, I'm not going to respond to you if you misrepresent me again.

As an agnostic atheist nothing angers me more than gnostic atheists who trash on religion because they don't feel it within their own hearts.

Fellow agnostic atheist here. Also annoyed at those who use anti-theist rhetoric and are prone to attacking others, rather than dealing with facts and engaging in civil discussion.

[LBennett76]

It's a historic marker. It has a story. That's not stuff you tear down just because somehow some little whiny pussy was offended by it and felt that religion was being FORCED on them. *eyeroll*
Why don't you take your argument to Arlington Cemetery? HUH?!?! Come on. If you're going do $#@! like this to a small town go for the big stuff. There's a whole damn motherfucking cemetery right in D.C. paid for by taxpayers with loads of those hateful religion establishing crosses.
Go big or go home and shut the $#@! up.
I can't imagine traveling around the country looking for things that might offend me. Talk about not having a life. Especially as an atheist. You only get one life and you're just going to die and disappear into nothingness. Why waste a second of your time on $#@! like this? Seriously.

Edited to add: Not normally one to curse, but this kinda of nonsense pisses me off. We didn't have a prayer at my high school graduation because the class president and valedictorian were atheists. The other 120 students wanted a prayer. I even offered to do it. But because they were the only two students to speak we didn't get one. So two people screwed the rest of us. It would have been student led, but nooooooooo. Pricks.

[Bman]

I have a solution to this.

HAVE NO PUBLIC PROPERTY!

[LibertyEagle]

Doesn't this belong in the religion forum?

Also, I don't see why this is an issue. If it's public property, religious artifacts don't belong. If it's private property, do whatever. Tradition isn't a good justification for anything.

You do not have freedom FROM religion. It is freedom OF religion.

[LimitedGovernment]

Why don't you take your argument to Arlington Cemetery?

For the sake of clarification, I'll point out that I'm not against something like private rights to place a cross at the grave (or grave representative) of a family member, even if the grave is on public land, as long as the distinction of private ownership is clear. I am against placing crosses at every grave as a matter of national policy. Hopefully the difference is clear.

[LBennett76]

What about roadside memorial crosses? That's public property. There's lots of them around here where people have been killed on the interstate. Should we go rip them all up out of the ground? Or forbid people to make them crosses? Or should we charge them with littering or defacing public property?



I'll check back in the morning. It's bedtime here. Curious as to your response on this one.

[James Madison]

Also, I don't see why this is an issue. If it's public property, religious artifacts don't belong. If it's private property, do whatever. Tradition isn't a good justification for anything.

I didn't imply that the Constitution prohibits the inclusion of religion in public ceremonies, events, or places. I clearly defined the my posts above exactly what the legal meaning prohibits and does not prohibit. Either you are not reading my posts carefully, or you are purposely trying to misrepresent me. Either way, I'm not going to respond to you if you misrepresent me again.



Fellow agnostic atheist here. Also annoyed at those who use anti-theist rhetoric and are prone to attacking others, rather than dealing with facts and engaging in civil discussion.

"Article the third ...... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Private speech and press are not to be abridged by law, and no law (government decree) can establish association between public (government) property or business and a religious view.



You're misunderstanding the words "establishment", "religion", and "public" as used in Constitutional law. The only reason that no one challenged public religious displays before was that non-religious worldviews were suppressed. The same trend was true for slavery. Jefferson had originally written an anti-slavery line in the Declaration of Independence that was removed from the final product.

When you say 'Constitutional Law' are you referring to direct letters on public policy written by the Founders or are you citing modern Constitutional 'scholars' who spout the 'living, breathing document' bull$#@!?

[LimitedGovernment]

When you say 'Constitutional Law' are you referring to direct letters on public policy written by the Founders or are you citing modern Constitutional 'scholars' who spout the 'living, breathing document' bull$#@!?

I'm referring to the precedence of decisions on law as related to the Constitution - in other words, how they have been defined in the law from the founding to today. If you want to use some other standard, then you need to provide an argument for a different standard - just as I asked you to do in reference to your definition of religion.

It is pointless to argue our positions when we don't agree on the terms that we are using, so I'm asking you to state what you suggest we use and why.

What about roadside memorial crosses? That's public property. There's lots of them around here where people have been killed on the interstate. Should we go rip them all up out of the ground? Or forbid people to make them crosses? Or should we charge them with littering or defacing public property?

Again, I have repeatedly made a distinction between "public" as meaning "governmental" - as the legal precedent uses it - and "public" meaning "something that everyone can see and participate with" - which is what your question about roadside prayer vigils and symbols relates to. I would ask that any legal/official monument be taken down if it was based on a particular worldview. I would leave any handmade crosses placed by private citizens alone unless I knew the person who died and knew that he/she was an atheist or otherwise wouldn't appreciate the symbol, or if a request had been made that the symbols be removed.

Recently, symbols have been removed because they actually contribute to further crashes since they are a distraction. I think that's good precedent. I'd also support them being removed if the family was nonreligious and asked that they be removed, or if someone requested that they be removed because their presence was causing fighting in the community. It makes no sense to put up something on public land that actually creates or exacerbates problems for members of the community.

If the accident happened near private property and the property owner put up a cross on their own land, I'd support their right to do so. If it was one of my nonbelieving family members who died there, I'd politely ask that the marker be taken down, but continue to respect the property owner's right to keep it up.

Is that sufficiently detailed to answer your questions/concerns?

[James Madison]

I'm referring to the precedence of decision on law as related to the Constitution - in other words, how they have been defined in the law from the founding to today. If you want to use some other standard, then you need to provide an argument for a different standard - just as I asked you to do in reference to your definition of religion.

It is pointless to argue our positions when we don't agree on the terms that we are using, so I'm asking you to state what you suggest we use and why.

My position is that government cannot regulate religious expression period. No say, at all. None. What citizens choose to do with public land is up to them, and if you have a beef with someone then settle it between yourselves. Don't bring in the State to bully your opponents with the threat of fine or imprisonment.

Of course, I would love to see a day when the state no longer exists, and we can avoid stupid $#@! like this all together.

My opinion of the atheist group in the article is they need to get laid. Just because you haven't had a date with someone who didn't later turn out to be inflatable is no reason to walk around with sand in your vagina.