ACLU... I hate you.

[starsevol]

you know what i hate, not to start another argument, jahovas witnesses. they came to my door once and i answered it with only shorts on and a bottle of captain just for the effect. i saw them coming down the street so i was prepared. i hate them for thinking they have the right to step on my property trying to preach on my stoop. is it legal to point a gun at them if they do it again. i wouldnt load it, but i would like to see their faces with a break action 16g pointing them in the face. that gun would wake jesus up if fired.

Easy to fix that....just answer the door holding the biggest snake you have.

Once last fall, a nicely dressed polite young man came knocking on our door for Obama. I was in the middle of feeding the snakes (I had the lid off a cage and a snake loose and unsupervised but momentarily busy eating), and I told him what I was doing. His skin literally turned a sickly grey color and he excused himself and just about ran down the driveway! ( I really had not meant for that to happen, but it still makes me chuckle!)

 

[snakemom1961]

I saw a report on the "Today" show this morning. Apparently that piece of land was transfered from the federal government to the VFW at some point so those who said it wasn't on federal land apparently are correct.
Part of the argument now is if it's on private property then it can't be considered a "National" memorial.
Just thought I'd throw that out there for some more food for thought on the subject.

Here's a link to a story about it.

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=4939

 

[glenhead]

I saw a report on the "Today" show this morning. Apparently that piece of land was transfered from the federal government to the VFW at some point so those who said it wasn't on federal land apparently are correct.
Part of the argument now is if it's on private property then it can't be considered a "National" memorial.
Just thought I'd throw that out there for some more food for thought on the subject.

Here's a link to a story about it.

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=4939

Well, this WAS true - Congress did order the transfer. Then the Glorious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals out on the far-far-left coast stepped in, and declared that it was unconstitutional to "carve out a donut hole" in the midst of 1.6 million acres since the poor public (who is, after all, unable to turn away from the HORROR of seeing a cross) would still have the unbearable pain of such a sight inflicted upon it.

 

[Cornsnake124]

how is giving away land to the VFW UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?!?!??!

 

[tyflier]

how is giving away land to the VFW UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?!?!??!

Because IT'S A NATIONAL PARK?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Dude, seriously, stop yelling at people, first of all. Second of all, realize that the tranasfer of this land from public ownership to private ownership is unConstitutional at it's core, and sets a major precedent that should not be established in this country.

It's not about being "horrified" or "unwilling to ignore" anything. It's about the simple fact that National Park land is not to be given out to private entitites, and private religious memorials do not belong on public land.

It's really simple...the National Park System was established to protect these lands for present and future generations. It's a means of preserving and conserving land through Federal Protection. Once eastablished as a National Park, that land is required to remain in public ownership and to be maintained and protected for all generations to enjoy.

You can be as snarky and sarcastic as you want, but cutting a hole in the middle of a National Park to give the land to private individuals is unConstitutional, and completely against everything the National Park System was invented for.

What happens when every little group in America decideds that they deserve a piece of NPS land, so they start tossing up religious symbols and fighting to the Supreme Court for ownership? Do you really want our court systems giving away our public lands to private citizens?

And give me the gatrbage about "it's one acre in the middle of the desert blablabla" because it is a HUGE precedent to be set, that would open the door for anyone and their brother to come ine and fight for a plot of land that is publicly owned.

I really, REALLY can't believe that some of you do not see the danger of this sort of precedent being establish...

 

[ForkedTung]

how is giving away land to the VFW UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?!?!??!

Well see there's no provision for it in the constitution...(you can stop yelling any time)

 

[tyflier]

how is giving away land to the VFW UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?!?!??!

Maybe think of it this way...

The Government doesn't own that land...I do. So the Government giving it to the VFW is unConstitutional because they first need to steal it from me in order to give it to them. Public Lands Transfers don't work that way. At least not when the land is already established as a Nature Preserve and part of the National Park System.

BTW...You own that land, too. You should be pissed about people trying to give it away or taking it from you, too...

 

[glenhead]

Someone please remind me...

Why is it ok to leave a totem pole (which is a private memorial) on land that is acquired by the NPS, but not a cross? Is it because people aren't "tired" of seeing totem poles? Is it because it's not Goodthink (or politically correct, or whatever term you want to use) to put them in the same category?

 

[glenhead]

What happens when every little group in America decideds that they deserve a piece of NPS land, so they start tossing up religious symbols and fighting to the Supreme Court for ownership?

Not to be pedantic, but the memorial was put up 60 years before the land was acquired by the NPS. (I thought the cross was put up in 1939, which would make it 55 years before the acquisition, but it was actually put up in 1934.) There are rules prohibiting putting in new religious symbols where none existed before, so this question is moot.

 

[snakemom1961]

Well, this WAS true - Congress did order the transfer. Then the Glorious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals out on the far-far-left coast stepped in, and declared that it was unconstitutional to "carve out a donut hole" in the midst of 1.6 million acres since the poor public (who is, after all, unable to turn away from the HORROR of seeing a cross) would still have the unbearable pain of such a sight inflicted upon it.

Hey Glen,
Do you have a link to that? I tried to find that but was unable to. Thanks.

 

[ForkedTung]

Someone please remind me...

Why is it ok to leave a totem pole (which is a private memorial) on land that is acquired by the NPS, but not a cross? Is it because people aren't "tired" of seeing totem poles? Is it because it's not Goodthink (or politically correct, or whatever term you want to use) to put them in the same category?

That comparison is completely lacking at best. A totem does not symbolize a religion, it is a cultural icon. So as to the "goodthink" a better term would be "no think".

Totem poles were never objects of worship. The association with "idol worship" was an idea from local Christian missionaries, who would have seen their association with Shamanism as being an occult practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_pole

Not to be pedantic, but the memorial was put up 60 years before the land was acquired by the NPS. (I thought the cross was put up in 1939, which would make it 55 years before the acquisition, but it was actually put up in 1934.) There are rules prohibiting putting in new religious symbols where none existed before, so this question is moot.

"That was then, this is now"
There is a time and place for everything, the time for that cross has come and now it needs to be gone.

 

[glenhead]

Hey Glen,
Do you have a link to that? I tried to find that but was unable to. Thanks.

www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2007/09/.../0555852.pdf

 

[glenhead]

That comparison is completely lacking at best. A totem does not symbolize a religion, it is a cultural icon. So as to the "goodthink" a better term would be "no think".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_pole

From the Manataka American Indian Council (whom I would like to think knows more about their totems than Wikipedia): http://www.manataka.org/page30.html

The totem carvings tell a story, revealed only if one knows the meaning assigned to various animals, fish, birds and designs and where they are placed on the pole. There were a number of reasons why a particular figure or design was chosen by a clan. The connection between the clan and the various figures carved into the pole may have been as a result a special gift from the animal, fish or bird spirits. Or, there may have been a recent encounter with that figure. Some clans claimed to be descended from certain totem figures.​

Sounds pretty "spiritual" to me. Pretty well fits the dictionary definition of "religious".

"That was then, this is now"
There is a time and place for everything, the time for that cross has come and now it needs to be gone.

Why? Because the ACLU says so?

Before you start in again about constitutionality, I invite you to consider this excerpt from today's WSJ:

The Constitution prohibits government from favoring one religion over another, but it does not compel hostility to faith. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v. Chambers (1983) that it was constitutional to open a legislative session with a prayer. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the majority, explained:

"To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an 'establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."​

This seems to fit the category of "tolerable acknowledgment".

 

[tyflier]

Not to be pedantic, but the memorial was put up 60 years before the land was acquired by the NPS. (I thought the cross was put up in 1939, which would make it 55 years before the acquisition, but it was actually put up in 1934.) There are rules prohibiting putting in new religious symbols where none existed before, so this question is moot.

Glenn, this goeas back a long way in this topic. I already answered this, with no response, so I assumed you understood...

It is part of the process when acquiring new land for a National Park, for the NPS to remove unwanted man-made structures from the land. This is what *should* have happened with this cross. In fact, it may have, and these people just put it back up. Regardless...once the land becomes a Nature Preserve, is giving to the people, and turned over to the NPS for maintenance and care, this religious symbol no longer belongs there and should be removed.

Now...whether it simply was overlooked, or has been removed and replaced over the years...it no longer belongs there the [i=]moment[/i] that land becomes public. Period.

As for Native American Totems and other religious symbols, such as the Alamo...I will answer that question for a second time...

These totems and icons have an Historical significance that is FAR greater than their religious symbolism. They are an integral part of the history of the land and the historical events that took place there. These are deemed important as historical symbols, and as such, the NPS is required to care for them as part of the National Park. Are some of them religious in nature? Yes. But the over riding factor is their historical significance. The Alamo is well known as a battle station and sancturay, the site of an incredible battle in this country's history...not a church. Native American Totems are kept in place as part of an indigienous symbol upon lands that are being preserved for their indigenous importance. They teach us something that cannot be learned in other places, and as such, they are deemed important to the educational requirements and displays of the National Parks. It's called "Natural History", and it is an integral part of the educational opportunities presented by the National Parks.

There is NO historical significance of this cross, other than the actions of a handful of private citizens. It was never approved or commissioned as a memorial, and only exists as such in the minds of it's supporters. Outside of the small group of VFW members that decided it should be there, this cross has no historical, indigenous, or educational importance in this location.

Your arguments fall short. WAY short. The historical and natural significance of these other symbols is far greater, and vastly more important historically 5than a privately erected cross.

If you can't understand the insignificance of this cross, you will never understand the significance of these other symbols. There is a world of difference between the two, and it is a completely unfounded comparison. The Alamo is important to every citizen of the US for the roles it has played in our history. This cross is signifiocant ONLY to the handful of people that put it there. Just a tiny difference there...

 

[ForkedTung]

The totem carvings tell a story, revealed only if one knows the meaning assigned to various animals, fish, birds and designs and where they are placed on the pole. There were a number of reasons why a particular figure or design was chosen by a clan. The connection between the clan and the various figures carved into the pole may have been as a result a special gift from the animal, fish or bird spirits. Or, there may have been a recent encounter with that figure. Some clans claimed to be descended from certain totem figures.

You are seriously going to compare that to organized Christianity?

Sounds pretty "spiritual" to me. Pretty well fits the dictionary definition of "religious"

Being spiritual and representing a religion are two very different things, most of the people in the clans don't even know how to read the totems.
Hey, If your best argument is 'two wrongs make a right' and prayer=an illegal monument on public land, then all the power to ya!

 

[tyflier]

From the Manataka American Indian Council (whom I would like to think knows more about their totems than Wikipedia): http://www.manataka.org/page30.html

The totem carvings tell a story, revealed only if one knows the meaning assigned to various animals, fish, birds and designs and where they are placed on the pole. There were a number of reasons why a particular figure or design was chosen by a clan. The connection between the clan and the various figures carved into the pole may have been as a result a special gift from the animal, fish or bird spirits. Or, there may have been a recent encounter with that figure. Some clans claimed to be descended from certain totem figures.​

Sounds pretty "spiritual" to me. Pretty well fits the dictionary definition of "religious".

Only in the broadest sense of the word. Only the clan that chose their icons can tell you if it was to honor a religous experience, a battle, the passing of a lovesd one, or the marking of a terrotory, or any one of the many thousands of reasons for which totems were erected. Choosing one of a possible million reasons does not bode well for the argument of totems being "religous". They are not, according to your own quote and citation, a "purely religous symbol". This cross is.

Also...see my last post as to why they are more significant than a wooden cross...

Why? Because the ACLU says so?

No. Because the land does not belong to the people who put it there, nor is it legal for Congress to pass ownership from the Public Trust to a private entity. In order for the passing of ownership to be legal, the private entities wouild need to establish that the land would be put to a greater public service by being privately owned than it can by being publicly owned. This is simply not the case, because transferring ownership will completely remove any public benefit, let alone improve the public benefit. There is no public benefit by having a wooden cross in the middle of the desert. There is only private reward. This makes the transfer illegal at best and unConstitutional at the very core of it's definition.

Before you start in again about constitutionality, I invite you to consider this excerpt from today's WSJ:

The Constitution prohibits government from favoring one religion over another, but it does not compel hostility to faith. For example, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh v. Chambers (1983) that it was constitutional to open a legislative session with a prayer. Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the majority, explained:

"To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an 'establishment' of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."​

This seems to fit the category of "tolerable acknowledgment".

This is not tolerable acknowledgement...this is public display. Saying a prayer before a meeting of Congress would be comparable to allowing a "moment of silence" for children to pray at school. It is compeltely unrelated to the permanent and visible placement of a purely religious symbol amidst a public Nature Preserve. The two are simply not comparable.

Just because it is OK to say a prayer does NOT imply it is ok to put up a symbol anywhere someone sees fit. The potential for precedent in this case is mindblowing. Imagine a precedent that would allow any fringe lunatice from any religious group a firm basis upon which to publicly display any symbol of their choosen based on the grounds of honor.

I know that the original intent of the people that erected this was wonderful in it's sentiment. I know that it is wonderful to honor our soldiers and their sacrifices.

But the reality is that this case can potentially set the groundwork for any group of individuals to take ownership of tracts of land within the National Park System, simply by erecting a symbol of their choosing. Now...before you get bent out of shape and go off by saying that it will never hapen, I'm blowing things out of proportion, and blablabla...realize that this case would be a MAJOR precedent. That is uindeniable because it will be the FIRST time that something of this nature will have occured since the inception of the National Park System. Second...realize that the first time is always the hardest. Once this case becomes a precedent, it opens up an entire basis of argument for an activity that is, at it's core, unConstitutional.

This cross is not worth it. If you want a memorial there, make it a universal monument, and keep it under the control of the NPS. Otherwise...take it down. The precedent is FAR too big for this to become a case of "just ignore it"...

 

[mike17l]

Granted I have not been following this thread closely, but I would like to address a few points.

realize that the tranasfer of this land from public ownership to private ownership is unConstitutional at it's core, and sets a major precedent that should not be established in this country.

How about the transfer of property/land from private ownership to another, or to the government?

Well see there's no provision for it in the constitution...(you can stop yelling any time)

There is also no provision to tax me and pay for another persons food, shelter or health care, but that happens.

The Government doesn't own that land...I do.

Try and use it at your discretion, see what happens, we do not own it. Bureaucracy does.

That comparison is completely lacking at best. A totem does not symbolize a religion, it is a cultural icon. So as to the "goodthink" a better term would be "no think".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_pole


"That was then, this is now"
There is a time and place for everything, the time for that cross has come and now it needs to be gone.

If a totem is a cultural icon, then a cross is as well. This country was founded by Christians, with Christian beliefs and ideals. So that would make a cross an American cultural icon .

As for Native American Totems and other religious symbols, such as the Alamo...I will answer that question for a second time...

The Alamo is well known as a battle station and sancturay, the site of an incredible battle in this country's history...not a church. Native American

If you can't understand the insignificance of this cross, you will never understand the significance of these other symbols. There is a world of difference between the two, and it is a completely unfounded comparison. The Alamo is important to every citizen of the US for the roles it has played in our history. This cross is signifiocant ONLY to the handful of people that put it there. Just a tiny difference there...

The Alamo? Really? The Alamo has significance to Texas, more than any other state or country (save Mexico). The Alamo has little to do with US history.

 

[mike17l]

Did you know, that at the top of the Washington Monument, are the words "Laus Deo"? Which in Latin means "Praise be to God". Should this be removed. Should the Washington Monument be moved so that it no longer is the center of the cross formed by the White House to the north, The Jefferson Memorial is to the south, the Capitol to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west? Should the different prayers and memorials in the Washington Monument (on everyone of the 50 landings between the base and the top) be removed? Should we rewrite US history?

 

[Shiari]

However, christianity is an invasive culture, not the native one. Thus, original totem poles and rock art have significant need to be preserved, whereas this cross is relatively new, of no historical significance, and is an symbol of a non-native culture.

And as MANY of the founding fathers were actually atheist/agnostic, this is NOT a "christian" country in any sense of the word. To equate this country as being "Christian" should mean that all laws should be based on the Bible... And how does that make us any different from Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan? Why do we deplore their impingement on civil liberties because of religious ideology, but glorify it here? It's absurd.

 

[tyflier]

Granted I have not been following this thread closely, but I would like to address a few points.

How about the transfer of property/land from private ownership to another, or to the government?

The Government purchases large tracts of land from private owners all the time. It's also donated to the government all the time. And if it is not private land owned by a private individual or company, it is typically the property of the government and falls into one of several categories including, but not limited to BLM, USFS, NPS, USFW. Any land managed by those entities is Public Land, and is regulated and maintained by the Federal and/or state governemnt.

What's your point?

There is also no provision to tax me and pay for another persons food, shelter or health care, but that happens.

Sure there is. In fact there are provisions to provide you the opportunity to vote on your taxes and how they are used. You may not always win your personal desires, but the provisions are there.

Try and use it at your discretion, see what happens, we do not own it. Bureaucracy does.

Well, see, now that's the point. As long as I am using that land within the regulations and provisions allowed by the controlling agency, I can do whatever I want. What I can't do is cultivate it, build upon it, "improve" it, or erect any man-made structures. I am also required to follow the rules and regulations which are established solely to ensure the enjoyment of all visitors, past present and future.

Nothing wrong with rules. They doesn't strip me of my right to enjoy the land in it's natural state or to enjoy and educate myself using the materials maintained and provided by the controlling agencies. What they do is ensure that the largest percentage of the population can enjoy these lands to the same degree...without turning a blind eye or ignoring private and personal agendas.

If a totem is a cultural icon, then a cross is as well. This country was founded by Christians, with Christian beliefs and ideals. So that would make a cross an American cultural icon .

Actually, this country was founded on the ideal of religious freedom, and established with this ideal in mind. In fact, the founding fathers went out of their way to do everything they could to ensure that this was NOT a religious state, and that this country would never become a religious state.

The Alamo? Really? The Alamo has significance to Texas, more than any other state or country (save Mexico). The Alamo has little to do with US history.

So...Texas isn't a state anymore? I'm sure that some of the people that live there might be happy to hear you say that, but sadly for your argument, Texas is a part of this country, and the events that took place which are culturally and historically important to Texas are also culturally and historically important to the rest of the country. Perhaps not to you or I, personally...but certainly a part of the history of this country, none-the-less...