Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Red River Freethinkers have filed suit against the city of Fargo, North Dakota over their refusal to allow a monument citing the Treaty with Tripoli to be placed near the Ten Commandments monument on city property. The Treaty with Tripoli, negotiated under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797, includes the statement "As the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion...".
This will make for an interesting case, especially with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the Summum cases next term.
Comments
What a great case! I'm not at all familiar with the facts beyond what you've reported here, but I suspect -- as I'm sure you do -- that the outcome of the Summum cases will have a lot to say about how this case is resolved.
Posted by: Dan | April 26, 2008 10:00 AM
Er... Isn't that story a bit biased? The first paragraph says " Opponents of Fargo's Ten Commandments monument have filed a civil lawsuit against the city, asking that the granite marker be removed".
Except that later it makes it clear that the lawsuit is to allow this other monument nearby. It seems like the first paragraph is designed to get the STACLU crowd in an uproar.
Posted by: Braxton Thomason | April 26, 2008 10:34 AM
@Braxton
Its the Bismark Tribune! Do you really expect that newspaper to come out in support of Freethinkers? The reporter would be barred from the Moose Lodge!
Posted by: yoshi | April 26, 2008 10:49 AM
Nah, the story is accurate. The same group earlier was demanding that the Ten Commandments monument be removed. They came up with this strategy as a way of doing the same thing. It's fair to say that they're opponents of the Ten commandments monument.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 26, 2008 12:41 PM
The whole Treaty with Tripoli issue has some very interesting consequences/ramifications. Considering that pretty much ALL of the so-called founding fathers were in either the executive or legislative branch at the time the treaty was drawn up and ratified, one cannot blithely dismiss it.
Some have argued that since the treaty was never enacted, it doesn't matter, but that is a pretty bogus argument - the treaty was still ratified and signed.
So, this means one of two things - those involved with the treaty or at least read and signed off on it, agreed with the claim that the U.S. is NOT a "Christian Nation", or that the founding fathers purposefully lied in the treaty by signing off on it for political purposes, making them all a bunch of lying politicians.
I choose the first possibility as the most likely and most intelelctually satisfying.
Posted by: slpage | April 26, 2008 1:23 PM
This is where things get silly to me. Who cares if there is a statue of the Ten Commandments? I agree with the judge cited in the article that it is religious and secular. It is more tradition than anything. This is so stupid to me for either side to care that much to spend all this money on it. The Commandments hanging is not going to convert anyone either way. I think the Christians get just as much blame on this for being silly. This country has some Christian traditions. Right or wrong it is part of who we are. That falls far short of saying this was a Christian Nation or founded on solely Christian principles in in the most general sense of the word.
In a country where the youth are going crazy and getting more and more reckless we need some kind of structure and standard in society. What that is I am not sure in a free society but this free for all you see in most schools now is not working.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 26, 2008 1:50 PM
The people of the country have some Christian traditions sure.
It's the government sharing those traditions that people are opposed to.
Posted by: Random_Tangent | April 26, 2008 2:04 PM
Random tangent,
The People are the government. I agree whole heartedly between seperation of Church and State. My comments on Ed's blog are clear on that. With that said, some of these battles are silly. They are about things that do not really matter. It is the anti-religious and religious fighting. It is the Hatfields and MC Coys and I think it has gotten so bitter that both sides just go on fighting and have forgotten what is was all even about.
Give the Religious Right their 10 Commandment monument and put your effort toward more important things like keeping Bush and company from eroding the Bill of Rights and are government torturing people to keep us "safe". That is just an opinion but I think this is all silly and is really not accomplishing anything either way.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 26, 2008 2:17 PM
No, no, no, no, NO! These battles are not stupid, they're not idiotic, and they are very, very important. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no real idea about the tactics or goal of the religious right in this country. The Christian Right has made an art of making societal changes in baby steps. These people are trying their hardest to try and revise history in this country into some sort of Christian wet-dream, where the founding fathers set out to build a country-sized Jesus theme park. No, putting a Ten Commandments monument up will not convert anybody, but know what? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM!!! Our legal system is NOT derived from the Ten Commandments; the Ten Commandments were NOT the first set of laws set by humans; most people do NOT get their morality from the Ten Commandments. It's nothing more than a wedge issue to drive religion into government, just like intelligent design, and it should be rejected soundly. Because putting a monolithic stone slab bearing the commandments on the steps of the Supreme Court will not be enough to satisfy these people. Then it will be making working on the sabbath a crime, adultery punishable by biblical law, etc... Religion has NO place in Government, AND ATTEMPTS NO MATTER HOW GREAT OR SMALL SHOULD BE REJECTED UTTERLY!!!
Posted by: David | April 26, 2008 4:25 PM
This is where things get silly to me. Who cares if there is a statue of the Ten Commandments? I agree with the judge cited in the article that it is religious and secular. It is more tradition than anything. This is so stupid to me for either side to care that much to spend all this money on it. The Commandments hanging is not going to convert anyone either way. I think the Christians get just as much blame on this for being silly. This country has some Christian traditions. Right or wrong it is part of who we are. That falls far short of saying this was a Christian Nation or founded on solely Christian principles in in the most general sense of the word.
KOI,
The problem is this. The more monuments, statutes, etc., dedicated to Christianity put up by the government, sponsored by the government, put up on public land, etc., the more "evidence" the Dominionist crowd will have for proclaiming this a "Christian Nation."
This systematic approach that Dominionists use is obvious in the creationism/creation "science"/ID debate as well. The effort to simply get a foot in the door, then an ankle, then the return to favored status for Christianity.
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 26, 2008 4:37 PM
David,
The vast majority of Christians work on the Sabbath. I agree with you to a point but you go far beyond that point and get into paranoia. What you describe is a small, small percentage of Christians that I did not really know existed until I began reading Ed. It is not the norm. Most may be moralists in that they want to impose the values on others but not Theocrats or Dominionists. How many Christians do you know?
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 26, 2008 4:39 PM
"The problem is this. The more monuments, statutes, etc., dedicated to Christianity put up by the government, sponsored by the government, put up on public land, etc., the more "evidence" the Dominionist crowd will have for proclaiming this a "Christian Nation"
Maybe a good point. I have to go to work but I will give it some thought. Look they are kind of nuts I agree. Some even scare me. I just think there are more important issues to tackle to keep this country free. Maybe this is more important than I think. I just think you might be able to argue that is gives them more fodder for the sheep when things like this come up. It is like us being in Muslim world. Would they not try and conquer the world for Islam if we were not there? Who knows. Some say leave and they will stop. But maybe they are never going to stop and leaving just makes it worse. Hard question.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 26, 2008 4:44 PM
King of Ireland:
I'd say, rather, that the government should speak with the voice of the people. The problem here is that the people disagree. So when the Ten Commandments are displayed by the government, that's not the people speaking: that's a section of the people hijacking the people's voice.
People who have Tourette's Syndrome will randomly interject swear words into their speech. That's what the Ten Commandments displays are.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | April 26, 2008 4:51 PM
KOI, you did NOT just cite the fact that crazed fundamental Christians are in the minority, thus should be ignored, did you? Because, Bush is a crazed fundie. Scalia is a fundie. What about the clerics in Iran, wahaabists in Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else where a minority who hold strong beliefs impose those beliefs on the majority? A majority of Americans approve of having safe and legal abortions available for women, but they're trying like mad to get them outlawed. Hell, for that matter, the people who have joined Al-Qaeda share beliefs with the slimmest of minorities of Muslims; didn't stop them from enacting some pretty damn severe damage here, or make Afghanistan a theocratic hellhole for the people living there. If you did not realize these people existed until you started reading this blog, your life has been far, far too sheltered, and I believe that deprives you of any right to comment on this matter. Try going to one of your kid's school functions, or a business party, or any social function, and if the chance comes up identify yourself as an atheist. See what reactions you get; then you'll understand why some of us have a problem with religion advocates getting ANY of their superstitious beliefs put into government.
Posted by: David | April 26, 2008 4:56 PM
David wrote:
If you're going to throw around such terms, at least give them some coherent definition. You're using "fundie" just like the religious right uses "liberal", as a buzzword for "everyone I hate." Scalia is a Catholic; Catholics are not fundamentalists, not by a longshot.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 26, 2008 5:03 PM
Ed writes:
That sounds like an overstatement. I can accept that Catholics may not be biblical fundamentalists in the same way as Protestants tend to be, but I have heard Catholic commentators denounce the recent Popes for upholding the treachery of Vatican II and for allowing services to be given in other than Latin. That is a form of fundamentalism. I have also known ultra-conservative Catholics who believe in such a strict following of Papal tenets that they have virtually abandoned all social compassion. That is magisterial fundamentalism. Followers of any religion can be fundamentalists in their own way. I don't think Catholics are uniquely immune.Posted by: Ex-drone | April 26, 2008 8:35 PM
Ed wrote:
I think, to be more accurate, you should say that not all Catholics are fundamentalists. There are sects of Catholicism that should count as fundamentalist under any reasonable account of what it is to be a fundamentalist. Any such definition ought to involve the fundamentalist's willingness to be unreasonable, in the sense of being willing to use the public political power of a democracy to impose their comprehensive religious beliefs on the society as a whole. Gary Wills is a great example of a Catholic who does not meet this definition: he embodies the idea of a liberal Catholic, who abides by his faith while rejecting the use of governmental coercion to impose his faith on others. Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza and the rich guy behind Ave Maria, is one who appears to fail this test.
As far as Scalia goes, I think calling him a fundamentalist gives him too much credit. I might actually prefer it if he at least consistently followed Catholic dogma. But, in the long history of Scalia's judicial decisions, I have a very hard time finding any principled stance that explains all of them. For example, his problem with Roe is that there is no right to privacy, and yet he doesn't seem to have any problem with 65's Griswold which established the "zone of privacy" that the Roe decision relied on as precedent! I really don't get him. It seems to me as often as not he's just trying to do whatever will benefit his wealthy conservative buddies.
Posted by: Pete M. | April 26, 2008 8:44 PM
Christian fundamentalism is a specific historical tradition going back to the publication of the Five Fundamentals in the early 20th century. It is explicitly Protestant. I do recognize that today the meaning of the word has been broadened out and it's often used to mean any theologically conservative Christian, but I don't think it can reasonably be broadened out even more to mean any politically conservative Christian despite the obvious theological distinctions. Nor should we use the term as a general purpose epithet for "Them" the way so many use "liberal" or "pagan."
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 26, 2008 9:24 PM
What, really? Is there any citation for his acceptance of Griswold?
Posted by: Skemono | April 26, 2008 10:06 PM
Yeah, Scalia has criticized Griswold.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | April 26, 2008 10:27 PM
I have never seen Scalia say he accepts Griswold, but I haven't seen him reject the decision either, when it seems like he should be looking to overturn it on the basis of his stance on Roe. Ed, if you could point me to Scalia's critique of Griswold, I'd appreciate it.
As far as Catholic fundamentalism, I think the term "fundamentalism" is used broadly enough, and with a more specific meaning than "the religious people I don't like," to justify my use here. I am aware of the historical tradition, but modern usage, as Ed acknowledges, involves reference to Jewish and Islamic fundamentalism and so on, and so has a meaning divorced from reference to the Five Fundamentals. Try doing a search on "Catholic fundamentalism," or something like this, and I expect a number of uses will pop up. What these references to fundamentalism share is, I believe, precisely a political component.
I want to address Ed's claim that I've equated religious fundamentalism with political conservatism. I don't think this is right. I don't think that part of being politically conservative is being willing to abuse political authority. Conservatives in the US obviously have a complex history, but emphasize such things as classical liberalism and the values of the market, as well as the values of tradition and social stability. (I won't mention the neo-cons here.)
Now, I certainly don't hold that that the willingness to impose one's religious belief set by force on others is exhaustive of religious fundamentalism, but I still hold that it is an important component; and from my perspective as a modern liberal, pragmatically this is the component that worries me the most about fundamentalists, regardless of the actual religious content of the belief set.
Posted by: Pete M. | April 26, 2008 11:03 PM
David,
I do not support Bush. I also personally am skeptical of his religious claims. I think it was Michael Gershon who wrote and article talking about how Bush was the "First Catholic President" weeks ago because of his extensive use of Catholic values in his foreign policy. I cite this to say that like Ed says it is so hard to figure who is who and who believes what in this debate. Fundementalist in the sense you are using is exactly what Ed said it was. It was a big push against the "liberalization" of the church. I think it did great harm to the Christian movement but will not get into detail about this now.
With that said, our Constitution set up a Republic. It was never intended to be a Democracy where majority ruled. I think The Federalist Papers and other Founder's quotes back this up. The whole point was to protect the rights of the minority group from the majority. I cannot remember which paper it was but this is clear. I think it is what the whole Bill of Rights was about too. This general principle.
So even if they are wrong about a lot they have the right to be wrong. They do not have the right to use the Government to establish religion. I do not think the 10 commandments being displayed does this. I personally do not care either way about the 10 Commandments being up. But some do and if a local government wants to put them up and they have secular value then so be it. I think these should be local issues in general.
As far as me not knowing that Dominionists groups exist it is a Geographic thing. I grew up in the DC area. Atheism is common here. Most of the really severe crap that bothers people on this site happens in rural areas. I never knew just how many "born-again" or "Evangelical" Christians there were around the country until travelled some. It is not the case here.
In summary, I am totally for the seperation of church and state. I just think of all the issues that effect this, this one is low on the totem pole at best. It just fills the pockets of Dobson and company when they put it on the radio. You can win a battle and lose the war. I am almost sure we are on the same side. Just because I am a born-again Christian does not mean I am aligned with them. I am not. I do not worry about the "godless" secularists in America.
The threat against me and freedom in general is and will continue to come from Religion and those that seek to unite throne and altar again both here and in Europe. Stuff like this is food for the fodder of the argument that American is going to hell because of the "secularists". See aftermath of the French Revolution, Congress of Vienna in 1815, and the aftermath of the nationalist movements in 1848. "Order" is always restored after the caous. Look at the hippies. Nixon used them.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 27, 2008 11:19 AM
Ed stated:
"Nor should we use the term as a general purpose epithet for "Them" the way so many use "liberal" or "pagan." "
Your right it just plays right into the hands of the "Conservatives". O'Reilly is good at this. He is always using the label"secular progressives". He knows full well the the rural white man that goes to church and carries a gun will think "commie, immigrant, feminist, homosexual, radical" who is ruining America and thus the word "secular" comes to describe that.
Most of these people I have met in the "Bible Belt" and "Mid-West" are nominal Christians and do not agree much with Falwell and company. But when the tent is expanded to include the "moral majority" this gives them more power. A small percentage of people that vote with the Religious Right seems to actually agree with all or most of what Falwell and company believe. They just throw in to stop the "commie, immigrant, feminist, homosexual, radicals" from taking over the country. They have gotten away with it for years.
What Obama said is really true. I like your friend Henry Neufeld. I have been reading some of his posts. The problem is that guys who think like him are in the minority. Why? Labels!
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 27, 2008 11:31 AM
No one seems to recall that many (most?) of those 10 Commandments graven images were put up as publicity for the movie of the same name. They are not part of any 'Christian Heritage' from 200+ years ago.
Posted by: khan | April 27, 2008 1:21 PM
While I honestly don't know enough about Scalia to judge, there are definitely Catholic fundamentalists out there. Hell, one of the friends I have made online definitely qualifies.
I understand that there is a different historical context that puts fundamentalism square in the purview of protestants. In modern use though, it is used to refer to extreme religious acceptance. People who take an extreme, dogmatic stance are fundies, period.
A good example of Catholic fundamentalism is my friend Beth's position on the ID movement. She wrote about ID and how she just didn't understand why it shouldn't be allowed in science classes - right up until the Vatican made it's pronouncement against ID. Then she wrote a long post about how she was just mistaken about ID. She said that she still didn't get it, but the Vatican is against it so she must be too.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 27, 2008 3:50 PM
A Protestant fundamentalist believes that the literal reading of the Bible (KJV) is the inerrant word of god and that all other knowledge is only human and therefore doubtful. He believes that Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin, died to atone for human sins, and was physically resurrected. He believes that Jesus will return to this Earth very soon, probably tomorrow, and divide humanity into the believers and the nonbelievers. Oh, and he believes that the Catholics have been led astray by Satan.
I know that it is hard to comprehend, but there are millions, nay tens of millions, of these people wandering the streets unmedicated.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 28, 2008 12:17 AM
Elizabeth,
I think what people have a hard time seperating is what I would call the essential doctrines of salvation according to the Bible, other non essential doctrines, and other teachings. It is possible to be a "Fundementalist" and differ on some of what you stated above.
I would not subscribe to the Bible being the inerrant word of God. There are errors of translations. There are other times when things are described but not proscribed. There are also times when people give their opinions. I think there are transcendant truths of the Bible and much of it is the inspired Word of God.
As far as the virgin birth and atonement I believe in that. I have no idea when Jesus is coming back and think much of the teaching on this is bad. I do think in the end believers and unbelievers will be seperated. I think that the leadership of the Catholic Church was corrupted to the point of heresy and still is to a large degree mainly through the teaching of salvation by good works. I also believe the vast majority of Protestants have been too.
The whole point of "Fundementalism" was to correct the watering down of the salvation message. In that the movement became severely legalistic in my opinion. They also put too much emphasis on the after life and ignored human suffering on this earth. They also tend to put too much emphasis on the individual and his salvation rather than the overall good of society.
I feel that they went way too far in their efforts to combat liberalism in essential doctrine and brought in a bunch of cultural crap and traditions that cloud the message. You see this in the Religious Right today.
So while I believe some of what they believe I disagree on the vast majority of what they teach. I disagree with the tone of all that they teach.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 28, 2008 8:43 AM
If there's one thing studying the history of the church/state separation conflict in the US has taught me, it's that if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.
Ceremonial deism, for instance, is used as a (lame) excuse to allow much of what goes on. These 'small' instances are then used as a further excuse to add more (continuously!) such as ten commandements monuments. These are then used to proclaim that the "US is a christian nation", usually followed shortly by proclomations that us atheists should leave the country.
So no, it's not a stupid fight. It would be if the neocons and wannabe theocrats weren't so dishonest.
Posted by: FastLane | April 29, 2008 3:36 PM