Monument to an Inglorious Past

Los Angeles Times ^ | 08-26-2003 | Mary Zeiss Stange

[boris]

By Mary Zeiss Stange, Mary Zeiss Stange teaches religion and women's studies at Skidmore College and with her husband has a bison ranch in Montana.

The separation of church and state has always been a fiction in this country, but never more so than when, in the 1950s, Cecil B. DeMille teamed with the Fraternal Order of Eagles to kick off donations of 4,000 6-foot granite tablets depicting the Ten Commandments to municipalities nationwide.

[snip]

The Eagles donated the monument to the seat of Custer County in 1968, and no one paid it much attention. But when a Christmas Nativity scene appeared on the courthouse lawn in the mid-1990s, Montana's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union took legal action against both displays.

[snip]

That's an excellent place for it. The museum occupies the site of the fort Gen. Nelson A. Miles built in 1876 when he arrived to direct the Indian war in the region after Custer's demise. Miles was a major strategist in the move to strip Native Americans of their land and culture, a key element of which was the abolition of the Plains Indians' religion.

Mary Zeiss Stange associate professor, Ph.D
AB, MA, PhD, Syracuse University
RE205: Women, Religion, and Spirituality
WS 101:Introduction to Women's Studies
WS 201: Feminist Theories and Methodologies
WS 210: Ecofeminism, Women and the Environment
WS 375: Senior Seminar in Women Studies
Research Interests: Feminist and environmental theory, women and hunting, religion and popular culture studies.
Ladd 213
ex. 5408

mstange@skidmore.edu
=======================================

Her email is not given but I have entered a "best guess" above based on other email addresses on the site.--Boris

[boris]

Editor
Los Angeles Times

Sir:

I am not a particularly big fan of placing the Ten Commandments in front of courthouses. However, I have read the Constitution and I can read English.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights make no mention whatsoever of "separation of church and state" or "religion and politics".

The First Amendment says, "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."

In other words it is a stricture against the federal Congress making laws. It does not say anything about states, judges, or courthouses.

This bears repeating, so that even Mary Zeiss Stange can understand it. In plain English, there is no part of the Constitution prohibiting the display of ANY religious artifact ANYWHERE.

Again: mstange@skidmore.edu

--Boris

[Big Mack]

I have also read the constitution and bill of rights. I also read english and I can find nowhere in these documents a right not to be offended. If these fifteen or twenty people that are always so offended could just put some ice on it or go to Hell, the rest of us (250 million) could get on with our lives.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[davidosborne]

Those of us who SUPPORT Judge Moore are not "defying" the law... I would argue that we are UPHOLDING the law........ Judge Moore does not deny the Federal Judge's Authority to HAVE the monument removed..... the question is whether the Federal Judge can ORDER Judge Moore to VIOLATE his oath of office.... If the Feds want to hire someone to remove the monument than so be it.... any business concerned about their future ecconmic success would not take that contract either..... see this thread....

“In the Supreme Court We Trust?”

FReegards,

David C. Osborne