"Uncle Vic" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96A0D4E516703vicman@216.196.97.136...

Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet chibiabos
(chib@nospam.com) made the light shine upon us with this:

In article <25VFe.45420$oj4.1110221@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/272005g.asp

Personally, I'm glad that the memorial will be allowed to stand.
Yeah, flame on after you've heard me out.

The objections to the memorial (in particular the large cross) are
that some think that its presence violates the establishment
clause. I don't think that it does. I look upon such objects as
free expression, and I welcome them, even if I don't share the
beliefs it embodies. I welcome them because they are a symbol of
our freedom to express ourselves, as individuals and yes, as a
group. Group expression need not be unanimous to be
representative. If most people want to see the cross there, I'm
glad to live in a country where they can place one there. I view
this instance of expression to be appropriate, given that it is
present in a park. A park is a facility created for the specific
purpose of providing a place for people to express themselves
freely. To be clear, I object to religious displays in or around
courthouses because of their function.

In at least one court ruling that I'm aware of (IIRC, the 9th
Circuits), the court maintained that harm was done to passersby who
did not ascribe to what the cross represents. I read that
decision, and was no further enlightened about what the nature of
the claimed damage was. To those who have made a cause out of
removing this memorial, I say that you've chosen a poor fight to
wage. We would be much, much better off if we ignored such petty
complaints and rallied around real and significant threats to our
rights when they present themselves.

I'm not inclined to disagree with you. I drive by that cross maybe
twice a year while I visit family in SD. Most times I don't even
notice it. But on occasion I've wondered what would happen if a
sizable group of worshippers decided to erect a giant stylized vulva
next to the cross, celebrating a much older religious culture that
revered fertility and females in particular. (Such stone icons
actually exist in parts of Europe, especially the north.)

I wonder, too, which of the two religious icons would be most likely
to remain for very long, the instrument of torture and execution or
the symbol of female power.

-chib

What I find far more offensive than any of those when heading south
to SD is the gold-digging megabucks Mormon Temple, on display right
next to the freeway everyone has to take into town from the north,
with its expensively manucured lawns and its expensively beautiful
architecture, and its golden icons on proud excessive display,
including the angel proudly named "Moroni", blowing a golden trumpet.
L. Ron Hubbard was right, if you want to get rich, start your own
religion.

Yeah. I curse myself for being to honest to do that. ;)

That building is impressive and really adds to the skyline.
My major complaint is that it is prime real estate and
they pay no taxes.
I hear that your average Mormon is typically not allowed
in, that they don't hold regular services there, and that it
is only used for 'special' occasions, a few times a year.