Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A couple weeks ago I reported on a decision by the Fargo city council to move a Ten Commandments monument from city property to church property so they would not have to also accept the placement of a monument quoting the Treaty of Tripoli requested by an atheist group. Well now that decision has been reversed.
The Fargo City Commission on Monday reversed its decision to move the Ten Commandments monument off the City Hall mall and took the first step toward cementing the marker's location in city law.In a surprising move, members not only accepted 5,265 signatures from residents who want to keep the marker where it is, but approved the first reading of an initiated ordinance that bars the city from moving any marker or monument that has stood on city property for 40 years or longer.
That almost surely means a lawsuit requiring them to declare an open forum on city hall property to allow other groups to put up monuments. The council seems to think that it doesn't need such a policy:
Coates then suggested the city create a policy for handling requests from other groups proposing religious monuments on city property."If we're going to be in the monument business, we have to do that in a way that is legally without challenge," she said.
Wimmer and Walaker disagreed, saying the city could deal with requests individually as they come forward. Coates' motion to direct City Attorney Erik Johnson to begin drafting a policy died for lack of a second.
I suspect that decision is going to come back to haunt them. The council now has to revisit the question of whether to allow the placement of the second monument:
Finally, the commission received and filed a request by the Red River Freethinkers to reconsider its proposed sister monument to the Ten Commandments, but took no action on the request.The Freethinkers' monument would state, "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The quote is from a 1796 treaty between the United States and Tripoli.
The commission already rejected the monument by unanimous vote on June 18. But Coates said she only voted to reject it because she believed the Ten Commandments also would be moved.
Jon Lindgren, interim president of the Freethinkers, said after the meeting, "I'm optimistic we'll get another shot" at putting the monument on the City Hall mall.
"We believe we'll prevail without going to court," he said.
I doubt it. I think this one is going to end up in court. The council blew it by reversing their decision.
Comments
They possibly are emboldened by the recent round of SCOTUS decisions.
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | July 5, 2007 9:46 AM
Can anyone else say "Arbitrary and Capricious?" Regardless of changes at SCOTUS, that isn't going to fly.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 5, 2007 9:57 AM
Tegumai Bopsulai wrote:
None of the recent court decisions had anything to do with church and state questions.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 5, 2007 12:42 PM
Ed,
True, they did not, but the most recent decisions did have a conservative lean to them. As a result, I would not put it past the city council to think the following:
"See the court is now in the hands of good conservative christains, so if we go to court on this one we will win because the SCOTUS is now no longer in the hands of the godless, commie, terrorist sympathizers"
There is no rational reason for this belief, but if you are waiting for rational reasons I suspect you will be waiting for a while.
Posted by: mess | July 5, 2007 1:18 PM
Good point, mess. You may well be right.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 5, 2007 1:56 PM
I can hear the response already--that Hein wouldn't affect a lawsuit stemming from the Fargo incident. I suppose that depends upon exactly what claims the Freethinkers make (though I presume one of them would be that the Council cannot constitutionally maintain a Ten Commandments monument on public property) and whether the Council can plausibly argue that all public funds for the monument have been similarly "laundered through the executive branch first."
Still, though--"None of the recent court decisions had anything to do with church and state questions"? C'mon.
Posted by: Rieux | July 5, 2007 2:03 PM
Okay, I worded that too broadly. But no, the Hein case has no effect on the Fargo situation. The freethought group is not challenging the placement of the Ten Commandments monument, they want their own monument put up. If there is a court case on it, taxpayer standing will be irrelevant.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 5, 2007 2:21 PM
Ed, commenter mess is exactly right -- This is how their "thought processes" work.
Posted by: martin | July 5, 2007 3:29 PM
If the pro-Ten Commandments council members were smart, they would agree to the Tripoli monument and then drag the process out as long as possible. Once it was finally up, common residents would take care of the "problem."
Posted by: FishyFred | July 5, 2007 3:41 PM
Honestly, this stuff is becoming less of news, and more of entertainment. What crazy stuff will these idiots do next? Tune in next time!
Posted by: soteos | July 5, 2007 5:29 PM
Once it was finally up, common residents would take care of the "problem."
Yeah, because nothing says "we're not morally bankrupt savages like the heathen" quite like vandalizing property to eliminate any thought that is perceived as contrary to The Word.
Posted by: gsb | July 6, 2007 9:02 AM
I hear the monument has a specially-edited second commandment:
"Thou shalt not make any graven images - unless it be the graven image upon which thou dost now lookest upon."
Posted by: Dr. Steve | July 6, 2007 4:40 PM
Not only is the Fargo case likely to end up in court, but it will also result in at least a preliminary injunction that requires the "10 commandments monument" to be sequestered in some storage room pending a final determination of the merits. That was actually what happened in the Alabama judge Roy Moore's monument case.
Posted by: raj | July 8, 2007 6:22 AM
Any chance that there might be some dispute about which 10C's? Is the version in Fargo the Catholic or the Protestant. If it gets as far as the SCOTUS, lawyers could argue about which version, and with the notable number of Catholics there, who knows?
Posted by: natural cynic | July 12, 2007 9:26 PM
Any chance that there might be some dispute about which 10C's?
Of the 4 versions (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Biblical), I vote for the version in the Bible, the one that has the stuff about sacrificing all first-born male animals and not boiling a kid in its mother's milk.
Posted by: Margaret | July 13, 2007 5:21 PM