ADVERTISEMENT

Atheists Pulling no Punches on Veterans

22*43*51

HB Legend
Nov 23, 2008
16,430
4,299
113
Two of three city council members who voted to take down a veterans memorial in an Iowa town were kicked out of office last week; the third decided not to stand for re-election.

The city council of Knoxville in central Iowa voted 3-2 to remove a memorial crafted by an area resident from a park in town. The decision came the Monday night before last Tuesday’s election.

Carolyn Formanek and April Verwers were the two members voted out of office. Formanek has served two terms on the council, while Verwers was a member since 2009, according to the Des Moines Register.

The memorial, which is a wooden silhouette of a soldier kneeling by a white cross, was not placed in the park by the town, but by the local chapter of the American Veterans. The group also maintains a “Freedom Rock” at the location. Vietnam Veteran Al Larsen made the fallen soldier memorial in honor of a friend of his who died in the war. He donated it to the AMVETS chapter several months ago.

Dan Goff, a town resident who organized a well-attended rally in support of the memorial, said, “What bothers me is for hundreds of years, this cross has been used as a tombstone marker for the fallen.“ Taking it down “offends me greatly because I know how much this means to so many people,” he added.

The town’s mayor, Brian Hatch, told WHOTV, “The city did not go take it down because at the point we didn’t feel like it had any more significance than as a monument to honor the veterans.” However, the community then received a letter from the atheist group Americans United for Separation of Church and State threatening legal action if the memorial was not taken down.

In issuing its threat, the organization “pointed to a similar instance in North Carolina in January. Americans United reached a settlement with King’s City council, which agreed to take down the monument and have the city’s insurer pay half a million dollars to Americans United for legal fees,” according to BizPac Review.

With a potential lawsuit hanging over its head, the Knoxville City Council voted to remove the soldier silhouette monument to private property and replace it with a bronze one depicting combat boots and a bayonet-tipped rifle planted in the ground.

“I hope it brings some closure to it,” Mayor Hatch said regarding the vote. “I hope we can kind of achieve the best of both worlds. We avoid a costly lawsuit and at the same time we still have the silhouette memorial up honoring the veterans, right across the road hopefully, on private property.”

But that may not be the end of the story. While Ian Smith, an attorney with Americans United, is satisfied with the outcome, the memorial’s creator may not be. Larsen’s attorney, Roger Byron with the Liberty Institute, told the Des Moines Register, “It’s completely unnecessary to move it.” He added: “It’s completely lawful where it is…We’re talking over our options with our client.”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/ci...zens-teach-them-a-lesson-theyll-never-forget/
 
I'm not weighing in the on the cross issue, but will if asked. But what I figure we will one day find out is whether the city residents will be ok paying $500k and eventually taking it down anyway (assuming that happens), and whether they will still be upset at the council.

Christian pride (or veteran pride, depending on who you believe) only goes so far when large amounts of money are at stake. Also, could the insurance company refuse to pay on the basis that they ignored legal advice to remove it?
 
Christian pride (or veteran pride, depending on who you believe) only goes so far when large amounts of money are at stake. Also, could the insurance company refuse to pay on the basis that they ignored legal advice to remove it?

You forgot to add Atheist pride to the list.
 
I'm not weighing in the on the cross issue, but will if asked. But what I figure we will one day find out is whether the city residents will be ok paying $500k and eventually taking it down anyway (assuming that happens), and whether they will still be upset at the council.

Christian pride (or veteran pride, depending on who you believe) only goes so far when large amounts of money are at stake. Also, could the insurance company refuse to pay on the basis that they ignored legal advice to remove it?

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042801949.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22*43*51
Why was this group installing monuments in a public park without permission?
 
I like creative titles for threads, so I won't give you a hard time. But it seems clear to me that this was a complaint about religion, not about veterans. What the atheist group did was to not let the good (a tribute to vets) scare them away from protesting the bad (a religious symbol on public land).

Needless to say, I approve. I'm generally inclined to let things that have been around for a while stay where they are - and to keep my powder dry to defend against new attacks on the separation of church and state. But once the battle has been joined - as has happened here - there's really only one correct side.
 
I like creative titles for threads, so I won't give you a hard time. But it seems clear to me that this was a complaint about religion, not about veterans. What the atheist group did was to not let the good (a tribute to vets) scare them away from protesting the bad (a religious symbol on public land).

Needless to say, I approve. I'm generally inclined to let things that have been around for a while stay where they are - and to keep my powder dry to defend against new attacks on the separation of church and state. But once the battle has been joined - as has happened here - there's really only one correct side.

So posting a copy of this picture in a public building would violate separation of church and state?
omaha.jpg
 
Do you think these informed citizens were making their decision on removing the council on the precedent of this case?

All I was pointing out is that it would be humorous to see what the same voters would say if they have to pay $500k and take it down anyways. That is clearly why the council voted, not because they were atheist.

I think the city council were silly people who should have told this group of professional complainers to go **** themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GlenHawk
I'm all for the cross thing they had erected. A) I don't think it is entirely religious and b) the obvious religious aspect of it is borne from history and fact, which tends to negate a even further.

But, the creator of the monument should be ready to accept someone of a different faith either adding on, duplicating, or creating their own. A star stone next to it, a crescent moon on the other side, even a swastika, a rising sun, and a fasces, all things that have religious backing, inspiration, and/or connection with war. Maybe an Om or ouroboros. Park could get filled pretty quick.
 
I'm all for the cross thing they had erected. A) I don't think it is entirely religious and b) the obvious religious aspect of it is borne from history and fact, which tends to negate a even further.

But, the creator of the monument should be ready to accept someone of a different faith either adding on, duplicating, or creating their own. A star stone next to it, a crescent moon on the other side, even a swastika, a rising sun, and a fasces, all things that have religious backing, inspiration, and/or connection with war. Maybe an Om or ouroboros. Park could get filled pretty quick.

That would be awesome. The more the merrier.
 
So, you're against safety rules? Interesting. Please go on.

Isn't this precisely the paternalism people were complaining about just a few days ago?

According to DBQ you need a permit to walk down the street. If that doesn't scare conservatives (who say they despise government and government intrusions on their liberties), what does?
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Isn't this precisely the paternalism people were complaining about just a few days ago?

According to DBQ you need a permit to walk down the street. If that doesn't scare conservatives (who say they despise government and government intrusions on their liberties), what does?

No, you need a permit to BLOCK the street.
 
All I was pointing out is that it would be humorous to see what the same voters would say if they have to pay $500k and take it down anyways. That is clearly why the council voted, not because they were atheist.

Actually, the "humorous" part is that a group in North Carolina would threaten to induce a half million dollars worth of damage to a small town in Iowa, as a political stunt.
 
Selma marchers didn't have that remember. If you're only going to allow protests the government approves of you are not for freedom.

You have the freedom to take the city square and scream and shout. You don't have the freedom to hold anyone who happens to be in the city square hostage.
 
You have the freedom to take the city square and scream and shout. You don't have the freedom to hold anyone who happens to be in the city square hostage.
Not by the actual definition of hostage, but by yours we certainly do. You cheapen the word and make your objection meaningless.
 
Selma marchers didn't have that remember. If you're only going to allow protests the government approves of you are not for freedom.

Please stop with this nonsense, the streets are used for commerce. You can't disrupt traffic the same way you can't disrupt a business. Protest on the public land on the side of the street all you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Tradition
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT