Hundreds rally to defend war memorial

[rug]

By: ERIKA NIEDOWSKI | The Associated Press
Published: May 02, 2012
Updated: May 02, 2012 - 6:05 PM

An estimated 1,500 people turned out Wednesday to defend a Rhode Island war memorial topped with a cross that has drawn a complaint from an atheist group.

Supporters gathered in Woonsocket to defend the 1921 monument as a tribute to four soldiers killed in World Wars I and II. They brought flags and crosses, and played patriotic music.

= snip =

The event was organized by the former head of the Rhode Island National Guard. Maj. Gen. Reginald Centracchio said the monument isn't forcing religion on anyone.

"This is a war memorial. It's part of our history. It's a historical artifact. The line in the sand is right here. It stops here. My fear is if we don't succeed here, the next step will be Exeter cemetery and after that, Arlington," Centracchio said.

http://www2.turnto10.com/news/2012/may/02/7/rally-planned-war-memorial-cross-ar-1020863/

[laconicsax]

1. Someone should remind General Centraccio that violating the Constitution isn't patriotic.

[darkstar3]

5. The general probably doesn't think that injecting God and Christianity

into military operations, observances, memorials, or training is unconstitutional. That is, at least, judging by the vast majority of military officers I've interacted with, read the writings of, or read about in the news. The Air Force gets all the shit about being evangelical, but that just glosses over the religious overtones found in every other branch of the military.

[cbayer]

10. I have a question for you.

When you were sporting a cross as an avatar and I objected to that, you told me that a cross could stand for many things and was not necessarily a religious symbol.

What makes this particular cross any different than the one you chose to display?

[laconicsax]

11. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

Are you asking the difference between an Internet discussion board avatar and a public religious display?

[cbayer]

12. No, I am asking why a cross is necessarily considered a religious symbol.

I assumed it was one and you told me it wasn't necessarily so.

The people that are asking for this to be removed say it's a religious symbol. Those who want it to stay says it transcends religion.

What is the difference between the position you took concerning a cross and the position they are taking?

[laconicsax]

13. Ah, that makes sense.

I never denied that a crucifix is considered a religious symbol, what I denied is that I was using it as one. I had recently seen the episode of Xena where she and Gabrielle were crucified and felt that a crucifix would be a good way to commemorate that event.

The standard use of a cross as a burial monument is as a religious symbol--a marker to indicate the deceased's religion. If crosses were used for everyone regardless of their religion, the case that the monument isn't religious could be made, but the graves of non-Christians aren't marked by a cross as a matter of form. The crucifix as a burial monument is unambiguously Christian.

[cbayer]

14. Now let's be honest.

You started a thread in A/A to crow about your new avatar and you said nothing about it being because of an episode of Xena. I can link to it if you want, but it seems pretty clear what your intention was.

While I agree that this particular cross is a religious symbol, I again reject the argument that it isn't necessarily one when used to mock or goad.

[laconicsax]

15. Are you seriously trying to call me out over a 6-month-old post in the Atheists & Agostics group?

[cbayer]

16. No. I asked you a question about how you could make a distinction

in one case and not another. And I still don't know how you do that.

I think the case can be made (and is being made) that the cross on this memorial supersedes religion and symbolizes something more encompassing. In addition, legal arguments are being made by members of the local Humanist Organization as to why they think it should remain.

My initial reaction to this story was that they should just remove it or move the monument elsewhere, but as more information comes in, it becomes more complex.

[laconicsax]

17. I answered your question.

Here it is again so you don't have to scroll up:

I never denied that a crucifix is considered a religious symbol, what I denied is that I was using it as one. I had recently seen the episode of Xena where she and Gabrielle were crucified and felt that a crucifix would be a good way to commemorate that event.

The standard use of a cross as a burial monument is as a religious symbol--a marker to indicate the deceased's religion. If crosses were used for everyone regardless of their religion, the case that the monument isn't religious could be made, but the graves of non-Christians aren't marked by a cross as a matter of form. The crucifix as a burial monument is unambiguously Christian.

[struggle4progress]

2. I bet most of these folk never knew about the Woonsocket memorial until

the folk from Wisconsin threatened a lawsuit

[rug]

3. Other than family descendants, you are doubtless correct.

[longship]

6. Please get your facts correct.

The folks from Wisconsin do not take preemptive actions. They only act when a member has brought their attention to a violation of the First Amendment.

FFRF is one of the largest atheist, agnostic, freethinker organizations in the country. They defend the First Amendment free exercise/separation clause. FFRF does not interject themselves into these conflicts without a member's complaint.

BTW, they are very successful in these cases. Thank god (so to speak).

[Goblinmonger]

7. The "folk from Wisconsin" were helping out a citizen of that town.

Lest we forget that this isn't a case of some "foreigners" coming in and stirring things up. Not that that is bad in 1st Amendment issues.

[msongs]

4. the "cross" it a great symbol for endless war and slaughter. seems appropriate nt

[struggle4progress]

8. RI Attorney General Adds His Support To Keep Memorial Intact

Statement comes hours before rally to preserve memorial, web site in face of demands of Freedom From Religion Foundation.
By Rob Borkowski
Email the author
May 2, 2012

In a release distributed today, Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin applauded Mayor Leo Fontaine, the Woonsocket City Council and the City of Woonsocket for gearing to fight a challenge demanding removal of religious symbols from the Place Jolicoeur memorial and Fire Department website ...

“The FFRF apparently has taken the myopic view that because it saw a cross, the monument is solely a religious symbol and should be removed,” said Kilmartin. “By taking this view, they clearly have chosen to diminish the monument’s significance in honoring the sacrifices the Jolicoeur and Gagne family members made in dying while defending our country, ironically so groups like the FFRF can even exist. This monument transcends religion and the call to remove it is an affront to all veterans. Our national cemeteries are filled with grave markers including the cross and the Star of David. Should they be removed also? ...

http://woonsocket.patch.com/articles/ri-attorney-general-adds-his-support-to-keep-memorial-intact

[eqfan592]

9. Wrongness upon wrongness.

And I love this line: “By taking this view, they clearly have chosen to diminish the monument’s significance in honoring the sacrifices the Jolicoeur and Gagne family members made in dying while defending our country, ironically so groups like the FFRF can even exist."

Bull. Shit. And on oh so many levels.

EDIT: What really makes me laugh is that it is NOT the FFRF that is diminishing the monument's significance, but the AG, the mayor, city council, etc, but implying that the memorial can only hold meaning if it has the religious undertones of the cross. As suggested by Cbayer right here, the simple solution that was (and still is) available to the parties involved was replacing the memorial with one that lacks those undertones. That they continue to ignore this solution is telling.

[AlbertCat]

21. RI Attorney General Adds His Support To Keep Memorial Intact

Cheesus....

You'd think they'd get this motivated about something really important.... like decent schools, or childcare for the poor, or meals on wheels.....


But try to get rid of one of hundreds of thousands of crosses on every other street corner and....

[LARED]

18. Well 90 years ago, no one thought the Constitution was in any danger

when this memorial was erected. Think that for 90 years that small town managed to stave off a theocracy even though this existed in the middle of town on government property for all those years. They were very lucky.

Thank goodness we have some atheist group taking up this critical infringement of "rights"

Seriously an atheist might make a face if exposed to this icon.

[eqfan592]

19. Christian privilage is on full display here in this post. (nt)

[LARED]

29. Thanks goodness after 90 years someone is putting those

privileged Christians in their place.

Woonsocket will be a much better place for sure.

[laconicsax]

32. Do you deny that Christians enjoy a privileged status in this country?

[LARED]

33. No, not at all. Woonsocket is a great place to start crushing

this Christian privilege. Internment camps may be required to really get the job done.

[Act_of_Reparation]

52. So violation of the Constitution is alright, so long as the majority is for it? nt

[LARED]

53. What violation of the Constitution are you talking about?

The monument is Woonsocket is not in violation. Unless of course you think a tiny fraction of the population decides what is constitutional and what is not.

[Goblinmonger]

58. Statistics put atheists at a higher percentage than Jewish in our country.

Should we stop listening to the concerns of the Jews?

[LARED]

87. No my point is we should listen ot our courts. nt

[eqfan592]

88. You mean the courts that have more often than not ruled that crosses in public ground such as this..

...are unconstitutional? Yep, I agree entirely!

[Act_of_Reparation]

89. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

It is clear from correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison the First Amendment is a safeguard against wanton rule by a religious majority. While there is nothing stopping politicians from holding religious beliefs, they are not permitted to legislatively favor theirs over others' (or lack thereof), and that includes using public funds to finance the maintenance of a symbol which undeniably Christian.

Erecting a Christian cross to commemorate the lives lost in two world wars thereby implies the only lives being memorialized are those of Christian soldiers. The memorial argument is therefore fail, if not legally than morally.

[cbayer]

68. This may not be a violation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121824841

[eqfan592]

69. Here's the FFRF's take on it.

http://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-contests-more-rhode-island-religion/

It may come down to the difference between a display about the ten commandments and an actual cross. Tho to be honest, the arguments used by the judges in the court case about the ten commandments didn't really pass my sniff test.

[cbayer]

71. Thanks. Legalese makes me all blurry eyed, so I don't really understand the

debate here.

I do think it's interesting that the national and local atheist organizations are at odds over this particular matter.

[Goblinmonger]

72. To be totally fair

it is the national atheist organization and the local humanist organization, if I remember correctly. Not that there isn't a great deal of overlap between the two. And a local organization has to pick their fights a little more carefully than a national one.

[eqfan592]

73. The local group does call itself the Ocean State Atheists.

From their facebook page:

The moderators of this site continue to support the war memorial in its current location and form until such time that sufficient evidence is produced that shows the symbol of the cross on the monument is an attempt to endorse religion

I'm not exactly sure how displaying a religions primary religious symbol could not be viewed as an endorsement of that religion....

[Goblinmonger]

75. I just saw that post.

I thought it was a reference to the RI humanist organization saying they didn't support it that was posted a day or so ago.

[cbayer]

74. Are there significant policy differences between the atheist organizations and

the humanist organization? Are there tensions?

Honestly, I'm not even sure what the difference is between the two designations. I have read the definitions of humanist and secularist repeatedly and remain confused.

I really don't care for soft sciences and avoided them throughout my education, so I think I just don't have the vocabulary for understanding the differences here.

Any relatively straightforward documents that might help me out?

[Goblinmonger]

76. First off, I just saw the statement from the local atheist org

I thought you were referring to the RI Humanist statement from a couple days ago.

Keeping it simple, I would go with the Venn Diagram concept. There is probably a good deal of overlap between the atheist and humanist circles, but they aren't right on top of each other. Humanism is, on a basic level, just putting human concerns/morals/etc. above divine ones. I would not argue that being a humanist means you have to be an atheist. You can still believe in god, but you put the emphasis on the human concerns/side. I know humanists that aren't atheists. Conversely, all atheists aren't humanists. Ayn Rand is the prime example. "Secular Humanism" is just a term made up by the right to try and make atheism a religion.

[cbayer]

82. What does it mean to put human concerns/morals above divine ones?

What is the difference?

[Goblinmonger]

20. Yeah, and in the 50s

we didn't add "Under God" into the pledge and put "In God We Trust" on our money to make sure that our great Christian country was differentiated from the godless atheists even though we have the 1st amendment.

It's pretty awesome when most things in this country go the way of your religion, isn't it.

[AlbertCat]

22. Yeah, and in the 50s

Could whites marry blacks in the 50's?

How about being gay and out? Could anyone do that without a problem?

Jess askin'....


Hmmmm.... maybe it IS time to end the "little" theocracy you did't even notice was there?

[Goblinmonger]

23. OK. Things change. I get that.

Not sure how that applies to the 1st Amendment issue.

[AlbertCat]

24. Not sure how that applies to the 1st Amendment issue.

I'm sure there are many religious grounds for things NOT changing.


People will say "Those are political issues and not religious ones."

But they all have huge religious crap mixed in. Just look at Prop 1 here in NC. The major fear tactics involve the churches having to change.


I'm with you on this one, y'know.

[Goblinmonger]

26. OK. Reading it in context as a response to LARED and not me

it makes more sense in my head.

I got it now.

[opiate69]

25. I think albert`s post was directed at lared.....

makes sense if I read it in that context anyway

[Goblinmonger]

27. Yeah, that makes it make more sense to me.

Thanks. I was confused.

[LARED]

30. It is pretty awesome.

I must admit it is a near tragedy the heavy burden atheist must bear carrying around coins that say "in God we Trust"

It must be just awful to have to have to live in a world where almost no one gives a rats rear end that simple words on coins cause such pain.

[eqfan592]

31. And yet more christian privilage. Truly astounding. (nt)

[LARED]

34. Seriously?

Because I point out that few people care about the atheists concern about a few words on a coin, I am exhibiting a Christian privilege?

I admit to be hard pressed to work up much concern over this issue as words on a coin hardly seems much of a real problem, but hey if you want to lose sleep over this issue, I feel your pain.

[AlbertCat]

35. few people care about the atheists concern

Our motto USED to actually mean something that made sense re the US of A.... remember?

E Pluribus Unum

"Out of many, one"


Now it's just some vague and untrue statement concerning magical supernatural solutions to problems.


It is sad that religious people have dumbed down the very motto of this country. Religious privilege in spades. Not just an atheist concern.

[eqfan592]

39. Big +1! (nt)

[mr blur]

36. I think that your problem is,

that you don't feel anybody's pain. Must be hard being a Christian when you're so persecuted.

[LARED]

37. Nonsense.

I don't feel persecuted in the least.

And I do have concerns about other people. An atheist group wants to dismantle a 90 years old monument to four local men because it happens to have a cross on it; sorry but I feel sorry for the folks in Woonsocket not them.

[eqfan592]

38. You feel sorry for the folks of Woonsocket?

First of all, it was somebody FROM Woonsocket that had an issue about it in the first place. Secondly, I think it's sad that the "folks" from Woonsocket value the cross on the monument more than they do the people it is memorializing.

[LARED]

41. I think they value both nt

[eqfan592]

42. Well one has a place in the public square and one doesn't. You can guess which one is which. (nt)

[LARED]

45. For 90 years there was no problem with both being in the public square

with no harm to anyone.

[eqfan592]

47. If only that were an actually valid argument. (nt)

[LARED]

48. I am certain you understand the difference between making an observation and making an argument.

[eqfan592]

50. Indeed I do. I'm glad to see you do as well. (nt)

[trotsky]

56. Big harm comes from the propagation of the lie that this is a "Christian nation."

A lie that you yourself have accepted.

[trotsky]

40. What bothers me far more than the actual god crap on our money or in the pledge...

is that today's wannabe-theocrats now point to those things to support their beliefs that this is a "Christian nation" - and use them to push that agenda forward.

Does that bother you?

[LARED]

43. The facts are the facts

"In God We Trust" has been on coinage at various times in the history of the US since the 1800's. The US has been viewed as a Christian nation by it own people for a long long time. While many had or have this view, sensible people know the difference between a theocracy and a secular government.

As for wanna-be theocrats using the phrase to support their nonsense, they bother me too

[trotsky]

44. "The US has been viewed as a Christian nation by it own people for a long long time."

Erroneously. Which empowers the groups that ARE trying to make it so in reality. I'm glad you're bothered by them; I'm just sorry that your privilege won't let you see how you're helping them.

[LARED]

54. How does that work?

The facts are the facts even if you think the people of the US were in error for 200 years

The fabric of US society both public and private has been and still continues to be saturated with Christian thought and themes since it's inception. Yet you decided it was in error.

Funny

[trotsky]

55. So you believe the United States is a Christian nation, huh?

Alrighty then. The rest of us can just fuck the hell off I guess.

[LARED]

85. Again the facts are the facts

there is a difference between a secular government, which is what we have, and the majority of people of a nation considering their private and public life a reflection of Christian values. Christian thought, speech, art, poetry, political dialogue etc has been and even today is a significant part of the fabric of society.

[trotsky]

90. What exactly is a "Christian value"?

Tell you what - if you get this "majority of people of a nation" to agree on what those "Christian values" are, you'll have a point.

And "Christian thought?" Where in the bible do we find any of the concepts that the Founders used to draft our Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Christian cultural supremacists scare me.

[skepticscott]

91. Yes, to a substantial number of people

in this "Christian nation", hating and discriminating against homosexuals is a "Christian value" (or "family value", as they like to dress it up as).

But of course, our friends here will probably continue to wail that those aren't "real" Christians.

[LARED]

93. "cultural supremacists"? Where do you get this stuff from? Don't quit your day job.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

All of these concepts and values are found in the bible and other places. The bible was not used as some template or go-to to draft the Constitution, I am not remotely saying anything of the sort. The founders were Christians, and Christianity was the most significant and relevant institution in the US before the constitution was written and it remained so for many many years after it was written. It's influence is seen everywhere in America from our icons to our language to our ethics and morals. Then and now.

[trotsky]

95. The Founders were a mixed group, they were not all Christians.

And those values are far from unique to your bible. More importantly, where are ideas like democracy and freedom of religion?

[LARED]

97. True, but the reality is that

most were Christian or at least Deists. And I agree those values are not unique to the bible (no one said they were)

You can not separate these men from the Christain values and ethics they were taught or learned. For the most part those principles were learned via biblical teachings. The church was an inseparable part of America. It's influence was wide and deep in our culture and society.

[darkstar3]

105. Deism isn't remotely Christianity. If anything, it's far closer to a wholesale rejection of it.

And if you had any grasp of the history the founding fathers lived through, you would understand how angry it would make them for anyone to refer to the US as a Christian nation, as if it were no different from 18th century England.

You really need to stop spouting that WallBuilders shit.

[LARED]

106. That's nonsense again

I am not even remotely stating the US is no different that 18th century england. You know hat yey insist upon painting my position in that manner.

BTW I have an excellent grasp of the times and settings of founding fathers.

[darkstar3]

107. Uh huh...

you don't even have an excellent grasp of the current times or of the English language. How on earth can anyone be expected to believe that you have a grasp of the history that the founding fathers lived through, especially when you ignore the most basic facts about Deism, about their rejection of the English way of governance at the time, about their amazing dislike of the Church and its power, and so much more?

[LARED]

108. Yep I forgot to check for typos before posting. Got me. Also please stop putting words in my

mouth.

I have said nothing about the Deism expressed by a few founding fathers. I have said nothing about the founders views on English governance. And I have made no comment about their views on the church and it power. Yet you have decided you can read my thoughts.

Also just to let you know what you said is true about them and that changes not a thing regarding what I have actually said.

[trotsky]

109. Nonsense.

Those men were products of the Enlightenment, and as you admit - some of the core ideas came from many other sources, many of which predate your bible.

And I see you did not point out where in that bible we find concepts like democracy or freedom of religion (which of course goes against one of the commandments).

The church was not only separable, it was separate. That's the nation they built. It's an insult to their memories to see you and right wingers spouting such Christian supremacist nonsense.

[LARED]

111. Again with your nonsense about what I have stated. Have you no shame? None?

No where have I spouted Christian supremacist nonsense.

[trotsky]

112. Replace "no where" with "everywhere" and you've got a true statement.

Now tell me where in your bible we find the concepts of democracy or freedom of religion.

You believe this country was founded on Christian "thought" and principles. Prove it.

[LARED]

113. Tell you what, show where I have spouted Christian Supremacy and I'll

answer your question.

In case you need help with the definition.

http://atheism.about.com/od/christianismnationalism/p/ChristianSuprem.htm

In the moral realm, Christian Supremacy is the idea that Christianity is superior to all other religions, and by extension, that Christians are superior to all non-Christians. Politically, Christian Supremacy is an agenda to get America’s political institutions to reflect this superiority by favoring Christians over non-Christians and Christianity over all other beliefs.

[trotsky]

114. Well I suppose I could collect a link to every post you've made in these last few threads...

because that's what they've been oozing with.

But I asked you first. Why won't you answer? (Actually, that's one of those "gotcha" questions, because I know the answer - and that's why you won't give it. We will not find basic American concepts like that ANYWHERE in the bible, and often find your god commanding the opposite.)

[mr blur]

57. So you don't care that your country's founders,

thought that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."?

Your Pesident Adams was wrong and you are right? Got it.

Fine by me - I don't have to live there.

[LARED]

86. Wow a quote. And I completely agree with him

Of course he is saying that the government is not religious based. Even the most fundamental Christian knows that.

Adams is not saying that the US is not a Christian nation.

Two completely different ideas.

[cleanhippie]

92. A nation of mostly christians does not a christian nation make.

[LARED]

94. Why not? nt

[cleanhippie]

96. It's been explained to you several times in this thread alone.

I doubt that my explaining it to you again would make any difference to you.

[Goblinmonger]

98. So the US is a white nation? n/t

[LARED]

100. I was not aware that one's pigmentation

was a religious or ethical value.

[Goblinmonger]

102. No, but you are saying that we are a Christian nation because most people are Christian.

Most people are white, but I'm pretty sure you don't go around saying how this is a white nation--though according to your logic, that would be a perfectly fine thing to say. Let me give you a few suggestions of where you might want to say that.

[Goblinmonger]

59. At least your desire for a theocracy

is no longer thinly veiled (and it was certainly a pretty thing veil--but at least you come out and say it here).

[LARED]

99. Cool, another guy making up his own definitions for words. I think I'll try, that it must make

winning debates much easier.

[Goblinmonger]

101. How did I make anything up.

How many times in the last day have you said that this is a Christian nation? That puts you pretty firmly in the theocracy camp.

Now, I know you are going to say that you really meant that we are a nation of a statistical majority of Christians. To which I will again ask, do you go around saying that this is a white country? Or a male country?

[LARED]

103. Look up Theocrat in Websters first. You obviously are using a different definition.

Then look what I have said about what how I view the idea of Christian nation verse a secular nation.

To simplify this for you; America has a secular government and is a nation of people inseparable from Christian thought, moral and ethics, It has and does permeates every part of our life in America.

[Goblinmonger]

104. I can't get past the bullshit of what you are saying, frankly.

We are not a nation of people inseparable from Christian thought. To claim that everything that the nation is about stems from Christianity is just crap. It wasn't founded on Christian principles by the founders (show me where federalism comes from Christian thought) and it doesn't permeate every part of our life. How is capitalism Christian thought?

The fact that you want people to believe that Christianity is a part of everything is a pretty clear indicator you are on the theocracy path. And if you really believe it is part and parcel of every single thing in this country, how do you then say we have a "secular government"? How did the government miraculously avoid this Christian permeation that you think exists?

[LARED]

110. Try this

Inseparable is not the same thing as claiming everything stems from Christianity. The same way adults thoughts, ethics, views, etc is inseparable from what he or she was taught, experienced, the environment they grew up in defines them in many way. That does not mean everything about them as adults stems from the childhood experience. (not a great analogy but the best I have on short notice)

Let me ask you this. If America was founded by Muslims what wanted a secular government instead of Europeans, do you really think our nation would look the same?

[sakabatou]

84. Seriously?

[progressoid]

28. Uh, how is this an attack on the Constitution?

[rexcat]

46. It was more like the constitution was ignored...

90 years agor rather than "not in danger."

[LARED]

49. So it took us something 200 years to figure out what the Constitution really means

with regards to the 1st amendment



Fascinating perspective.

[eqfan592]

51. Something being "ignored" and something having it's meaning figured out are two different things.

eom

[Leontius]

78. The problem is they don't have the ability to understand the difference between

acknowledgment and establishment. Their heads are so far up their search for persecution behind every bush that it blinds them to the difference.

[eqfan592]

80. Yeah, you've sure got us figured out, Leontius.

I mean, what harm is there in taxpayer money and public lands being used to simply "acknowledge" certain religions? Yeah, we all just have a persecution complex, that's really what the problem is....

?width=500&height=432

[rexcat]

83. I really did not expect you to understand my post...

you did not disappoint.

There have been many instances where the Constitution has been ignored or its interpretation bastardized since the adoption of the US Constitution on September 17, 1787. IMO "religious" people have been some of the worst in understanding the first amendment. You appear to be a prime example of that scenario or it could just be cognitive dissonance on your part.

[struggle4progress]

60. ... FFRF's President tells Eyewitness News that the city's battle is premature. "We have not sent

a cease and desist letter. We have not had a reply yet from the mayor. We are trying to educate the public about the law. The law is on our side and I think the response has been hysterical." ...
Mayor: Leave Woonsocket memorial alone
At center of controversy because of cross
Updated: Thursday, 03 May 2012, 5:54 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 03 May 2012, 5:54 PM EDT
By Melissa Sardelli
Reporting by: Susan Campbell
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/blackstone/mayor-leo-fontaine-leave-woonsocket-memorial-alone

[Goblinmonger]

62. Oh Noes. FFRF used the word "hysterical"

Good thing they don't post on DU.

[struggle4progress]

61. R.I., not national, American Legion will pay to repair Woonsocket cross war memorial

May 3, 2012 2:59 pm
By Tatiana Pina

WOONSOCKET, R.I. -- ... During a Wednesday rally in support of the monument, Normand "Mickey" Vadnais, an American Legion national executive committeeman, announced that national headquarters would pay both for the repairs and the city's legal fees if it is challenged in court.

But Thursday, Phil Onderdonk, a lawyer at national headquarters, said they had agreed only to assist the city's lawyer.

Gene Pytka, the Legion's state adjutant, responded that the state chapter will back what Vadnais said and will raise funds to repair the monument.

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/05/ri-not-national.html

[Goblinmonger]

63. That doesn't make it any better.

And the American Legion is hardly the bastion of protection of Church/State Separation.

[struggle4progress]

64. The blowhards are certainly swarming

Jolicoeur Place was dedicated in November 1921 by the French Marshal Ferdinand Foch who a few days earlier had dedicated the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City. Thirty years later, the monument was re-dedicated to include the three sons of local Gold Star mother Bernadette Gagne. That history rather suggests that Jolicoeur Place is primarily a war memorial.

The monument originally sat in the middle of Cumberland Hill Road -- but when the road was later relocated, Jolicoeur Place stayed in its original location. This fact, together with the current state of disrepair of the monument, suggests that nobody has had much interest in monument in recent years

That is, until FFRF in Wisconsin decided to chime in. It's not quite clear how FFRF picked this fight: perhaps they prefer to target smaller municipalities with financial problems, in the hopes of winnng a quick cheap victory. In any case, they've managed to inflame blowhards everywhere: we now see thousands of folk parading back and forth, wrapped in flags and carting crosses

[eqfan592]

65. A person living there filed a complaint and asked for the FFRF's help. (nt)

[Goblinmonger]

67. Pesky facts. Always getting in the way

of Christian privilege.

[Goblinmonger]

66. Stop with the misinformation. FFRF "chimed in" because a resident OF THAT TOWN asked them to.

They picked this fight because someone asked them to and it seems pretty clear that the law is on their side. I guess you want a big "shame on them" for sticking up for the 1st Amendment, but if you're going to do that at least have the decency to not spread disinformation in the process. So should the ACLU not help someone if it the problem isn't in NYC where they are headquartered?

So should the FFRF have stayed out of the RI prayer banner case? And I know you were going for sarcasm at the end, but you do know that there are plenty of blowhards wearing metaphoric flags and crosses chiming in in favor of this monument.

[struggle4progress]

70. I'm kinda wonderin if this mysterious and anonymous person, who so suddenly

discovered th'memorial to be offensive, ain't actually one o'th'many noisy blowhards we see paradin back and forth in Woonsocket today, carrying a cross and wrapped in a flag

Cuz it looks like it's been an organizin bonanza for that crowd

[eqfan592]

77. Who said the person "suddenly discovered" the memorial to be offensive?

More than likely they found it offensive for a long time but would never dare speak up until recently. And even then they are clearly keeping a low profile, and given the reaction there it's not difficult to understand why.

[struggle4progress]

79. The dates testify to the suddenness. The monument was originally dedicated 90+ years ago, and it was

re-dedicated about 60 years ago. The old Hamlet Avenue Bridge was demolished around 1999, and Cumberland Hill Road was relocated as the bridge was rebuilt. So if the anonymous person was disturbed prior to 1999, the person has less cause to be aggrieved today, as the monument is now less public, being surrounded by parking lot rather than interrupting traffic on Cumberland Hill Road. And if the anonymous person was disturbed prior to 1999, that is some evidence of the trivial nature of the original aggrievement, since much time passed before said person began any search for remedy

[eqfan592]

81. That doesn't really address my point.

"More than likely they found it offensive for a long time but would never dare speak up until recently. And even then they are clearly keeping a low profile, and given the reaction there it's not difficult to understand why."

It could be the Jessica Ahlquist case in that area, or some other case, pointed this person to a means of dealing with the issue.

[struggle4progress]

115. More Woonsocket history

UFO pictures from Rhode Island in 1967
... On 10 June 1967, at about 12:00, noon, Mr. Harold A. Trudel, 29 years old, married and father of 3, was driving his car on West Wrentham Road, in the general vicinity of East Woonsocket, when he pulled over and parked near some hi-tension lines, waiting and watching for what he didn’t know. He had seen UFOs in this area on three previous occasions. He had a loaded camera in the car and he checked it over as he waited. In a matter of minutes a hi-domed disc-shaped metallic flying object approached the power lines from the West ...

Second UFO photo taken by Harold Trudel in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, June 10th, 1967. (image credit: Harold Trudel, August C. Roberts)
http://www.openminds.tv/ufo-rhode-island-1967/

National UFO Reporting Center Sighting Report
Sighting Report
Occurred : 8/16/1999 08:30 (Entered as : August 16 1999 8:30 PM)
Reported: 8/27/1999 13:43
Posted: 3/4/2003
Location: Woonsocket, RI ...
Sighting Happened: Made front page headlines of the Woonsocket Call in Woonsocket Rhode Island. August 26, 1999 edition Article in newspaper.
http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/008/S08859.html

2 Claim to Have Been Taken Aboard Craft By Unknown Entities

Sketch of Entities Prepared by Artist As Described by Witnesses
Date of Sighting: June 6, 2009
Time of Sighting: Began at 3 AM EDT
Location of Sighting: Woonsocket, Rhode Island (See Map)
... Second Report From Witnesses (In Response to Investigator Questions): Like we told you on the phone, our friends were still sleeping by the time we awoke on the grass. We told them what happened, and they just thought us to be lying and laughed, assuming we were going too far into trying to think of a plot for a new sci-fi/horror film ...
http://www.ufosnw.com/sighting_reports/2009/woonsocketri06062009/woonsocketri06062009.htm

amazing UFO - woonsocket 1/2/12