• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

ACLU... I hate you.

Status
Not open for further replies.
CHILDREN! STOP! NOW!

Don't MAKE me come over there!

Let's take this back to the original topic and LEAVE IT THERE, ok?

As the senior contributor to this thread, I'm hereby exercising Crusty Old Ba**ard I've Had Enough privileges and calling a halt to the sniping. QUIT!

The "donut hole" discussion is (in my opinion) rendered moot by the existence of more than 1800 privately-owned parcels scattered throughout the Mojave Preserve. Yeah, the VFW could have moved it, though it's not at all clear that they currently own the 5 acre parcel discussed, only that they'd offered one in exchange. I expect they consider the monument's location part of the thing, since it was carefully chosen by the group who originally put it up.

I also found it quite interesting (from reading the scotusblog synopsis of filed documents) that the monument is only visible from a stretch of road running about 100 yards either side of the monument. <snarky>Gee, it's really too bad that the litigant considered that 200-yard stretch of road the only vista worth seeing in the entire 2500-square-mile preserve.</snarky> Please note that the preceding snarky comment is not intended to be an argument of any legal caca or anything, so you don't need to expostulate in disagreement. 'K?

It really is too bad we didn't have the scotusblog documents at the beginning of the thread. I had done a lot of research on the issue things associated therewith, but hadn't ever even seen scotusblog before yesterday. I am once again exercising my privileges as COB and decreeing that the documents weren't there before yesterday. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Now you children play NICE or I'll be back with more scathing rejoinder! :poke:
 
glenhead said:
CHILDREN! STOP! NOW!

Don't MAKE me come over there!

Let's take this back to the original topic and LEAVE IT THERE, ok?
Click to expand...
Yes, sir. No sarcasm intended.

As the senior contributor to this thread, I'm hereby exercising Crusty Old Ba**ard I've Had Enough privileges and calling a halt to the sniping. QUIT!
Click to expand...
Ok.

The "donut hole" discussion is (in my opinion) rendered moot by the existence of more than 1800 privately-owned parcels scattered throughout the Mojave Preserve. Yeah, the VFW could have moved it, though it's not at all clear that they currently own the 5 acre parcel discussed, only that they'd offered one in exchange. I expect they consider the monument's location part of the thing, since it was carefully chosen by the group who originally put it up.
Click to expand...
IMO, there is a lot of "coulda, shoulda, woulda" potential on both sides of the argument. Seems like a lot of hulabaloo over a couple of stubbron opinions, but that is, evidently, what litigation is all about, so...

As for the other parcels of land...is this land that was given to private individuals or groups by the government after acquisition of the land and the formation of the preserve, or land that the government, for whatever reason, was unable to acquire as part of the preserve. I think this is a very important distinction. Truthfully, I don't know, and don't know how or where I would start to find that out, unless they were in links you posted that I missed...

I also found it quite interesting (from reading the scotusblog synopsis of filed documents) that the monument is only visible from a stretch of road running about 100 yards either side of the monument. <snarky>Gee, it's really too bad that the litigant considered that 200-yard stretch of road the only vista worth seeing in the entire 2500-square-mile preserve.</snarky> Please note that the preceding snarky comment is not intended to be an argument of any legal caca or anything, so you don't need to expostulate in disagreement. 'K?
Click to expand...
All snark aside, the legalities of an issue cannot hinge upon visibility. It doesn't matter whether it was hiddne behind a granite wall and only visible from 10 yards directly in front of it. It's location in and of itself was unConstitutional, at best, and it shouldn't be there. Once the land becomes privately owned, that is no longer an issue.

Regarding the snark...personal opinions are what they are, and I see no need to be condescending over a person's opinion of a vista. It could very well be the perfect vista for specific viewing opportunities or as a photographic subject. People are permitted to be specifically drawn to a single location within a vast expanse of land, are they not? Seems to me that there are good number of artists, photographers, musicians, poets, and philosophers throughout history that have chosen to spend a vast amount of time in one location over all others. I see no need for sarcasm as it applies in this instance to an individual's opinion and taste of landscape scenary.

It really is too bad we didn't have the scotusblog documents at the beginning of the thread. I had done a lot of research on the issue things associated therewith, but hadn't ever even seen scotusblog before yesterday. I am once again exercising my privileges as COB and decreeing that the documents weren't there before yesterday. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Now you children play NICE or I'll be back with more scathing rejoinder! :poke:
Click to expand...
OK...;)
 
Name calling is a rules violation. There is nothing subjective or ambiguous about that. If I see further incidents in this thread, or if further incidents are reported, 3-day bans will be issued. That goes for the popular and unpopular alike. Attack ideas, not each other.
 
My snarky comment was intentionally hyperbolic. The litigant is certainly entitled to his opinion, no matter how rude I think it is that he chose to force it on others. I certainly wouldn't express the snark if I had a reasonable expectation of his seeing it - that'd be rude. I was condescending ONLY because he'd never know about the condescension, which is one of my self-justification mechanisms for when I disagree with someone's viewpoint and have no possibility of discussing it with him.

If I were to meet Mr. Buono, I'd be quite interested to find out really-truly why he chose to make an issue of it. If he were to visit the forums, I'd ask him, although I can't promise the original question might not be phrased a bit sharply. I might not defend to the death his right to his opinion (unless it was truly threatened), but I'd danged sure argue adamantly to enable him to express it freely.
 
I love how that article shows how the separation of (non-christian) church and state is up and running just fine.

"But in 1999, the National Park Service denied a Buddhist's request to erect a shrine near the cross then declared its intention to take the cross down."
 
I read the additional information provided several pages back, and so now I think I see this in a new light. I am now inclined to wonder if the issue with this cross isn't so much that it is there, but rather, the fact that a Buddhist group asked permission to erect a monument and had that permission denied. It seems like that was the initial issue with the NPS, and that they decided to deny one religious symbol meant that all others had to be denied.

I guess what we now have to ask ourselves is this: if we allow ONE religious symbol/statue/memorial, is it not fair to allow others as well? And if one comes, will not others also want to erect their own symbols and statues? How much stuff do we want to have going on in one little location? How much are we willing to allow? The point of natural parks is to preserve exceptional natural areas... the addition of human-built structures en masse can seriously undermine that goal.

So perhaps the issue is not that it is a cross, per say, but that allowing it while refusing a Buddhist shrine is tantamount to government endorsement of one religion over another, which is not allowed.

Anyone else get that from the additional readings?
 
Roy Munson said:
Name calling is a rules violation. There is nothing subjective or ambiguous about that. If I see further incidents in this thread, or if further incidents are reported, 3-day bans will be issued. That goes for the popular and unpopular alike. Attack ideas, not each other.
Click to expand...

Hey, Dean, here's a serious question. I've been a bit free with the "sanitized"(?) versions of ...um... salty(?) language, e.g., referring to myself as a "crusty old ba**ard". I've done so with a bit of trepidation. There's no doubt of exactly what letters go in the asterisks, so no doubt of what the word actually is. Also, I'd never use anything like it in referring to anyone else, just myself (because that one's accurate!) Is that ok? Stepping over the line? Treading close to it? Not anywhere near, because it's far too cute and amusing when I do it, because it's me, after all? I would never try any tricks with words that are universally considered profanities (too conservative to do that in public, despite how much I swear in private)), but what say you to this? Thanks!
 
Roy Munson said:
There ARE opinions that clearly break rules. Prefacing a comment with "in my opinion" doesn't change that or exempt the poster. But these political threads present modding problems. A majority of them are posted solely to inflame. This thread may be an example of that. These political threads often turn into ad hominem slugfests, and I tend to turn a blind eye to much of it. If you jump into a thread like this, beware. The mods aren't here to protect you from yourselves.

And the mods don't speak with one voice. Susan may tolerate things that I won't, and vice versa. It's all very subjective. So no one should whine over apparent inconsistencies in the moderating of this site. Inconsistencies will happen. If you can't tolerate that, then go elsewhere.



I agree. It IS very confusing. I don't think that Susan meant that ALL opinions are acceptable. They are not to me. And since I act alone, and speak only for myself, I would suggest that members resist the urge to test their interpretations of what Susan said. Sometimes trolling IS tolerated. Who decides when it is unacceptable? Me, at least when I'm the one evaluating a situation. And for the record, antagonizing mods is against the rules, whether it's stated in the rules list, or not.



I do it because I was elected to do it and I agreed to do it. That doesn't mean that I can't complain about it or wish that there wasn't so much time-consuming foolishness. But I like this site, and I don't mind helping out. Why do contributors who complain about this site persist in supporting it? We all do things that seem incomprehensible to others.


Welcome to planet Earth. Please enjoy your stay.



You can report PMs too, you know. I don't know if that comment broke any rules, and I don't know the all-important context. But bashing the team over hypotheticals is sort of low.



So you're complaining about it, but you never took the first step toward resolving the problem. That's typical around here.
Click to expand...


#1 I didn't complain to a mod because it wasn't said on this site AT ALL. Wasn't aware you could do something about phone-calls to my home. Next time,I'll report it? I mean,can you go ahead and give the cops a ring for me? No? I didn't think so. I said before that I felt like I was treated like I was stupid around here and I was told that nobody thought that way about me and that I was comparing myself to a black person?(that one still confuses me) and yet your comment of "Welcome to planet Earth. Please enjoy your stay." pretty much was a smart-butt way of saying "you're stupid". This is also not the first time I've been told to "go elsewhere". Why? Because I don't agree with something? And I never said anything about the moderators as a whole. Anywhere. I've just noticed that Susan does like to complain a lot about what being a moderator entails. If I really felt that something I was doing for free was THAT frustrating or THAT much of a PITA,I certainly wouldn't do it. Especially not when I'm doing it on my own time free of charge. However, that's JUST MY OPINION. I was genuinely asking questions and asking for clarification and you took my questions and answered them in a manner that made it seem as if I was being sarcastic or not serious when in fact I was very serious. It is extremely confusing when there is a moderator team that does not follow the rules all the same. It's confusing when one mod will tolerate certain behaviour while another will not.

Oh and I do not need a mod to protect me from myself. Never have and have never requested that one do so for me.
 
Hypancistrus said:
I read the additional information provided several pages back, and so now I think I see this in a new light. I am now inclined to wonder if the issue with this cross isn't so much that it is there, but rather, the fact that a Buddhist group asked permission to erect a monument and had that permission denied. It seems like that was the initial issue with the NPS, and that they decided to deny one religious symbol meant that all others had to be denied.

I guess what we now have to ask ourselves is this: if we allow ONE religious symbol/statue/memorial, is it not fair to allow others as well? And if one comes, will not others also want to erect their own symbols and statues? How much stuff do we want to have going on in one little location? How much are we willing to allow? The point of natural parks is to preserve exceptional natural areas... the addition of human-built structures en masse can seriously undermine that goal.

So perhaps the issue is not that it is a cross, per say, but that allowing it while refusing a Buddhist shrine is tantamount to government endorsement of one religion over another, which is not allowed.

Anyone else get that from the additional readings?
Click to expand...

Good thoughts, Lauren. I'd caught that, too. My interpretation (open to debate, but it was my interpretation) was that the cross was there before the NPS acquired the land, but the Buddhists were asking for a new thing, so they HAD to be told no. In a similar vein, another VFW group asking to put another memorial (let's assume the new one's not a cross, 'k?) would HAVE to be told no. The rules and regs explicitly prohibit building something like a memorial on NPS lands, and rules are made to be followed.

I think I know myself well enough to believe that if the memorial under discussion had been a non-religious doo-dad that existed before the NPS's acquisition, I'd be arguing just as strongly that in my opinion, it should be left alone because of its meaning AS a memorial. I'm very much a traditionalist, and memorials are a real soft spot for me. The undying cynic in me says that nobody would ever have said anything about it if it had been any (non-inflammatory) shape other than a cross, so the self-analysis is likely moot (and admittedly irrelevant in any case).

It's still going to be interesting to see how this shakes out, and what happens to the memorial in the long term. If SCOTUS says it has to go, then it has to go, but it'll be a shame.
 
I think that if it stays, it should indeed be added onto. Make it a true memorial for all the dead... buddhist, jewish, pagan, atheist, etc.
 
snakemaster24 said:
Umm, can I bring out the pandas yet!
Click to expand...

Patience, Grasshopper. If people start sniping again, I'll help you post pandas and llamas and badgers (soccer ones, not snake ones this time) and Charlie the Unicorn and all sorts of annoying things. Heck, we'll even see if we can't find something annoying to do with a spiny echidna, ok?
 
Shiari said:
I think that if it stays, it should indeed be added onto. Make it a true memorial for all the dead... buddhist, jewish, pagan, atheist, etc.
Click to expand...

Dang, I was going to add that to my last screed and forgot. Spot on! If the land gets deeded to the VFW, I hope they'll be gracious enough to let other groups share it!
 
glenhead said:
Dang, I was going to add that to my last screed and forgot. Spot on! If the land gets deeded to the VFW, I hope they'll be gracious enough to let other groups share it!
Click to expand...

Completely agreed! If not you can bet they're gonna catch some serious flack from families of deceased soldiers from different religions (I hope!). But I'm glad to see that it is going to get to stay as I agree with you glen, memorials are a soft spot for myself as well and I think they should be honored no matter what overt symbol stands over them.
 
Intriguing stuff from scotusblog.com's Thursday Round-up (this may become one of my favorite sites...):

The Washington Post editorial page opines that the cross at stake in Salazar seems “in context more a historical marker of a bygone era than a government embrace of a particular faith.” Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank suggests that interest groups on both sides of the Establishment Clause question, like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Christian Defense Coalition, had an incentive to dramatize the First Amendment harm in order to attract attention – and money – to their causes.​

What?!?!? Special interest groups expressing greed?!?!? The very thought!
 
Check out the photo...

091007_SCD_crossEX.jpg


That kind of does it for me... I understand a little better what the issue is. It is sort of an eye sore. I'd be saying that even if it were a dome or another type of monument... it sticks out like a sore thumb from what might otherwise be a quite lovely vista.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top