ACLU... I hate you.

[tyflier]

An important question might be, "What has the ACLU done in the past decade or so that was beneficial to the constitution and did make sense to honest people?"

http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html

Go to this page. Look under the "issues" tab. There you will find issues regarding children's rights, women's rights, prisoner's rights, death penalty rights, voting rights, reproductive freedoms, internet and privacy rights, and a nice, long list of the thousands of individual rights that the ACLU fights to protect, every year, free of charge, and without comlpaint...even over the last decade...

Now...I'm willing to admit that the majority of those cases have very little to do with upper middle class, white collar conservatives, or Christians. But I fail to see where the term "honest" and "WASP" are interchangeable.

For the record, and just for your personal information, KJUN...I reported your post as inflammatory. Hopefully something will actually be done about it this time...

As for the topic at hand...

*Most* "war memorials" that are on public land, and are approved as such, do not contain overtly religous symbolism. They are plaques, monuments, obelisks, statues, walls, flags, and a myriad of patriotic and military based monuments. If the people fighting for this cross to stray in place are so adamant that it remain in place...change your symbolism to something that represents ALL the veterans...not just a select few. Really...it's an old wooden cross. Put up a statue or a plaque. Leave the religious symbolism out of the equation, and you won't find near as many people being "offended".

The reality s that this monument was illegally erected on public land, with no approvakl. It never should have recieved amnesty from Congress, because it should have been immediately removed at first sight. Since Congress made the land trade and decided to protect the area, it seems only fitting that the memorial be replaced with something more universal than a cross.

Again...I'm not saying that it should be removed or denied. I'm simply pointing out the actuality of the situation. It doesn't belong there. If people want it to remain where it is, make it fall in line with the majority of OTHER war and veteran's memorials in this country, and do away with the overtly religous symbolism. I don't think it's too much to ask. There are just as many non-Christian veterans of wars both foreign and domestic that deserve to be represented as well...

 

[tyflier]

Next time you're in D.C. stop and take a look at every federal building on The Hill... You'd be amazed by how much faith based architecture there is. I have to agree with the side that says people really need to get over themselves and just let people live. You don't have to get offended because you saw the Senate Building and an engraving of the ten commandments and Moses were on the wall, you just deal with the fact that they are there, respect the symbolism of what they stand for, and deal with it...

Respectfully...what if the Federal Buildings were carved and engraved with religious synmbols that were anything other than Christian in nature? If, instead of Moses and the Ten Commandments, the buildings were enscribed with writing from the Qoran or some other religous book...would you feel the same way?

I'm not trying to incite anger from you...I am legitimately asking you. And if you say yes, you would feel the same, than I commend you for that, and accept it as an honest answer. But even if that is the case, the same is not true of a majority of the "Moral Majority" in this country, and that is where the problems come in.

My issue is not with Christians or Christianity. It is with those select Christians that believe their rights are more important than the rights of others that I have a problem with. My problem is with the Moral Majority that believe that Christianity is the only religion, and believe it is the only one that deserves Constitutional Protection.

 

[Pruddock]

Respectfully...what if the Federal Buildings were carved and engraved with religious synmbols that were anything other than Christian in nature? If, instead of Moses and the Ten Commandments, the buildings were enscribed with writing from the Qoran or some other religous book...would you feel the same way?

I'm not trying to incite anger from you...I am legitimately asking you. And if you say yes, you would feel the same, than I commend you for that, and accept it as an honest answer. But even if that is the case, the same is not true of a majority of the "Moral Majority" in this country, and that is where the problems come in.

My issue is not with Christians or Christianity. It is with those select Christians that believe their rights are more important than the rights of others that I have a problem with. My problem is with the Moral Majority that believe that Christianity is the only religion, and believe it is the only one that deserves Constitutional Protection.

I understand where you're coming from Chris as I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State. To answer your question, I honestly wouldn't mind at all. I understand that they are there because Christianity was a very large reason why this country was "found" in the first place by Europeans, that being one of the main reasons why Christian symbols have made it on many Federal buildings. If I were living in Malaysia or some other country with a very strong Muslim background and there were Islamic symbols on the buildings (as there are), I would understand that as well.

I guess my biggest issue is that the ACLU doesn't recognize the fact that these things were done in a historical context when a very very large majority of the people were Christian in a republic where the majority has the ability to make the rules. It's a part of our history and was used as a way to symbolize the sacrifices made for the country by the majority.

I'm not trying to say that other religions shouldn't be represented equally, as I feel that all veterans deserve my utmost respect. What I do understand is that the majority of the men who fell during WWI and WWII were in fact Christian, so Christian symbols were more likely to be used. Right or wrong, that's what happened. I think that taking them down or boxing them up at this stage in the game is disrespectful to ALL of them. If you want a more neutral memorial, create a new memorial and recognize it as such.

I can't side with either the "Moral Majority" or the ACLU because I have issues with either one of them. They are both extremes and I think that people need to realize that when it comes to religion, everybody needs to find that middle ground where they can agree. I say EVERYBODY with exactly that statement in mind. People need to realize that every single person on this earth is religious. You may not believe in and pray to a/multiple deity(s), but even science is a religion because you are believing in something that has been "proven". Either way you're putting your faith in SOMETHING. If everybody can come to realize this I think that people will be more understanding of each other in general.

So, as for the monuments to fallen veterans that exist on either private or public property I say let them be and understand that they are a part of OUR history as a nation. However, if there is a memorial created tomorrow on public land that is particularly Pagan, Christian, Muslim, etc. then I understand the uproar because its a direct violation of the separation between C&S and is unconstitutional.

 

[Roy Munson]

The main problem I have with the ACLU, particularly in the case being semi-discussed here, is that sometimes their actions seem to fortify and encourage the religious zealots. But I respect that they stand on their principles, even when it might hurt the cause. The sooner that superstitious, un-evidenced, fairy-tale idiocy is removed from serious public discourse, the better off and more free we'll all be. WWJD? As far as I'm concerned, he never existed. But if he had, and he was truly an enlightened being, he wouldn't be proud of the hypocrisy and bovine feces his alleged supporters smugly throw around in his name.

 

[danielle]

I agree it's not the memorial the ACLU is after it's the symbolic meaning behind the cross. Like I said pages ago remove the cross and offer another memorial. Assuming the bulk of soldiers in this case were christian has no basis for why that makes it okay. NOT ALL THE SOLDIERS were christians making a religiously based memorial a slap in the face so whats the big deal with erecting something mor neutral for the same cause?

 

[Roy Munson]

And I'll add one more thing. Anyone who thinks that an ultra-lib like me walks in lock-step behind Obama should keep in mind that he alienates and annoys me with every speech. I'm sick of the "God bless" silliness at the end of every speech. Does anyone REALLY believe that a god favors America? I favor America, but there are those who would doubt it. Yet I exist! (Or at least I exert measurably empirical evidence supporting my existence.)

 

[Pruddock]

The VFW acquired the land and it was ok'd by congress. Why not take the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees needed to fight the case and use it to create a new, more neutral memorial? I guess I see that as a better option than fighting the old one. When it comes to things like this I think the ACLU could better use it's time and resources in a much more effective way that doesn't bring up the extremes from either side. It would create better PR for the ACLU and would allow this other monument out in the desert to be forgotten by everybody except those who occassionally drives through the desert.

*I apologize if my typing is poor I'm on an iPhone and not gonna go back and grammar check lol *

 

[Emily1188]

The main problem I have with the ACLU, particularly in the case being semi-discussed here, is that sometimes their actions seem to fortify and encourage the religious zealots. But I respect that they stand on their principles, even when it might hurt the cause. The sooner that superstitious, un-evidenced, fairy-tale idiocy is removed from serious public discourse, the better off and more free we'll all be. WWJD? As far as I'm concerned, he never existed. But if he had, and he was truly an enlightened being, he wouldn't be proud of the hypocrisy and bovine feces his alleged supporters smugly throw around in his name.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Roy Munson again."

 

[ForkedTung]

“I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”
- Thomas Jefferson

"separation of church and state," nuff said!

http://www.au.org/about/

 

[tyflier]

Payton(I hope I speled it right this time...seriously, I don't do it on purpose. I have a friend that spells it with an "e"...anyhow...)

I'm not "firmly" on either side in this particular instance. I don't think it should be completely removed, yet I do feel it should be changed to a more universal symbol. If it was on private land...I wouldn't care. But it is a National Park and a Nature Preserve. I honestly don't think it belongs there at all, but...it's already there, and Congress has already offered protection. So...change it, and make the majority happy. At that point, I can't see why anyone would debate it further.

As for the ACLU...part of their "beauty"(and I use the term loosely) is that they don't care about publicity or financial cost. They fight for WHAT is right...not who is right. As far as the ACLU is concerned, you, your history, your background, and your past are inconsequential when it comes to your rights as an American Civilian(notice I didn't say citizen).

Part of the problem is precisely the same problem with religious symbolism. There is (seemingly so) a majority of Christians in this country. As such, they have lobbies, legislators, and politicians in full support of their rights at every turn. They don't need the ACLU. The ACLU is typically involved in litigation against Chrisitianity, because Christianity is usually at odds with other religions, and other people's liberties. You don't see a whole lot of businesses, people, or politicians speaking out against Christians, the Moral Majority, or what they try to accomplish in this country. But the Moral Majority DOES try to accomplish a LOT of things that are against MY liberties and rights, and those of people that are of different belief systems. This is why the ACLU is needed for "the other side".

I just want to be clear...I'm not against the monument being there. I just understand why the ACLU is involved, and would like all of the facts debated, instead of just a couple of facts, and a lot of private opinion. There is legitimacy in the case that the ACLU is presenting. There is also legitimacy in the defendants' case. There needs to be a middle ground, as you said. Unfortunately, in this instance, neither party is willing to accept the middle ground. Invariably, this means a Court Ruling. Both parties will most likely accept a reasonable compromise as laid down by the courts. But until the courts DO reach a decision...both parties will understandably argue the extremes of the case. It's the nature of litigation in matters like this.

And just so you know...I tried to rep you for your last post. Evidently I need to spread some around...

 

[Nova_C]

The main problem I have with the ACLU, particularly in the case being semi-discussed here, is that sometimes their actions seem to fortify and encourage the religious zealots. But I respect that they stand on their principles, even when it might hurt the cause. The sooner that superstitious, un-evidenced, fairy-tale idiocy is removed from serious public discourse, the better off and more free we'll all be. WWJD? As far as I'm concerned, he never existed. But if he had, and he was truly an enlightened being, he wouldn't be proud of the hypocrisy and bovine feces his alleged supporters smugly throw around in his name.

WWJD? I wonder if Jesus would really be happy that the people that claim to love and honor him spend so much time and money focused on the device that he was tortured with.

As far as the cross not being a religious symbol, ever, if Christ had not died on the cross, what meaning would it have in any context? There is no non-religious display of a cross. It is meaningless without the connotation.

The cross is still on Federal land. The title transfer was defeated as unconstitutional since it would allow a tiny plot of land with a religious symbol in the middle of a massive federal space.

 

[jazzgeek]

WWJD? I wonder if Jesus would really be happy that the people that claim to love and honor him spend so much time and money focused on the device that he was tortured with.

"Do you think if Jesus ever comes back that he'd want to see another cross? It'd be like coming up to Jackie Kennedy wearing a rifle pendant."

-- Bill Hicks





Dale

 

[tricksterpup]

And I'll add one more thing. Anyone who thinks that an ultra-lib like me walks in lock-step behind Obama should keep in mind that he alienates and annoys me with every speech. I'm sick of the "God bless" silliness at the end of every speech. Does anyone REALLY believe that a god favors America? I favor America, but there are those who would doubt it. Yet I exist! (Or at least I exert measurably empirical evidence supporting my existence.)

Duh, your the Devil.. OF course God Bless would annoy you.

 

[tricksterpup]

"Do you think if Jesus ever comes back that he'd want to see another cross? It'd be like coming up to Jackie Kennedy wearing a rifle pendant."

-- Bill Hicks





Dale

for you Dale. I miss Mr. Hicks.

 

[glenhead]

Just to throw some gasoline on the fire...

There are rules and regulations concerning the placement of religious icons on federal lands. Did those same regulations exist 60 or 70 years ago, when the monument was first erected? If the cross was put up before the rules were enacted, why does it not get "grandfathered" in, instead of laws being enforced ex post facto at the whim of a small group of zealots?

How does permitting the memorial to stay imply that the federal government is "supporting" one religion over another?

Why is it that one VERY small group can override the preferences of over 70% of the US population (as of 2007)? Why do the wishes of one bunch of zealots count for more than the rest? Precisely HOW does the sight of a cross or other-thing-tied-to-religion cause actual "injury" to anyone in their right mind? Are they incapable of turning the other way? Do they really, truly have that little regard for their fellow man that they'll force their agenda on everyone else?

Why is it more important for one group of zealots to get to decide what is "meaningful"? If a group puts up a monument honoring someone, displaying something that is deeply meaningful to them, something that is not intended to inflame or incite, what gives another group the right to say "no, that's not meaningful, you have to remove it"? I'm willing to allow that if a monument is intended to inflame or incite, and is erected solely for the purpose of offense, then that's a different bag of worms. Is there a single living soul who truly believes that a cross honoring war dead was intended to be offensive?

What the he!! ever happened to common sense and common decency?

This case is the first time a case has made it to the Supreme Court with this kind of direct analysis of how extensive the Establishment Clause impinges on the Free Exercise Clause. Many other cases have been debated, up to the US Court of Appeals (where the 9th District has done their usual fabulous job of ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench, but that's a whole 'nuther thread), but none have passed the litmus test necessary to make it to the Supreme Court. It'll be fascinating to see how it all ends up.

 

[jazzgeek]

Why is it that one VERY small group can override the preferences of over 70% of the US population (as of 2007)?

Shall we ask the Senate Finance Committee?


Dale

 

[Nova_C]

Just to throw some gasoline on the fire...

There are rules and regulations concerning the placement of religious icons on federal lands. Did those same regulations exist 60 or 70 years ago, when the monument was first erected? If the cross was put up before the rules were enacted, why does it not get "grandfathered" in, instead of laws being enforced ex post facto at the whim of a small group of zealots?

How does permitting the memorial to stay imply that the federal government is "supporting" one religion over another?

Why is it that one VERY small group can override the preferences of over 70% of the US population (as of 2007)? Why do the wishes of one bunch of zealots count for more than the rest? Precisely HOW does the sight of a cross or other-thing-tied-to-religion cause actual "injury" to anyone in their right mind? Are they incapable of turning the other way? Do they really, truly have that little regard for their fellow man that they'll force their agenda on everyone else?

Why is it more important for one group of zealots to get to decide what is "meaningful"? If a group puts up a monument honoring someone, displaying something that is deeply meaningful to them, something that is not intended to inflame or incite, what gives another group the right to say "no, that's not meaningful, you have to remove it"? I'm willing to allow that if a monument is intended to inflame or incite, and is erected solely for the purpose of offense, then that's a different bag of worms. Is there a single living soul who truly believes that a cross honoring war dead was intended to be offensive?

What the he!! ever happened to common sense and common decency?

This case is the first time a case has made it to the Supreme Court with this kind of direct analysis of how extensive the Establishment Clause impinges on the Free Exercise Clause. Many other cases have been debated, up to the US Court of Appeals (where the 9th District has done their usual fabulous job of ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench, but that's a whole 'nuther thread), but none have passed the litmus test necessary to make it to the Supreme Court. It'll be fascinating to see how it all ends up.

I'm pretty sure that the constitution exists to protect from tyranny of the majority as much as it exists to protect from the tyranny of the elite. So, yeah, the needs of a small group can generally override what 70% of the country wants (Where did you pull that 70% number from, anyway?).

The cross was erected on private land, but the land was turned into federal land as part of the establishment of the protected Mojave desert. So now it's federal land.

Why is it more important for one group of zealots to get to decide what is "meaningful"? If a group puts up a monument honoring someone, displaying something that is deeply meaningful to them, something that is not intended to inflame or incite, what gives another group the right to say "no, that's not meaningful, you have to remove it"?

If you can show me one case of religious, yet non-Christian, symbols being preserved on publicly owned land, then I'll agree with the sentiment of your post.

 

[Emily1188]

If a group puts up a monument honoring someone, displaying something that is deeply meaningful to them, something that is not intended to inflame or incite, what gives another group the right to say "no, that's not meaningful, you have to remove it"?

If said monument is explicitly religious, and is put up on government land, then I can tell you exactly what gives them the right say, "You have to remove it."

The Constitution.

 

[ForkedTung]

How does permitting the memorial to stay imply that the federal government is "supporting" one religion over another?

How does it imply that is isn't "supporting" one religion over another?

Why is it more important for one group of zealots to get to decide what is "meaningful"?

Which begs the question: Which group of "zealots" gets to decide? The group of zealots you identify with or the group of zealots you don't identify with?

 

[ZoologyGirl]

How does permitting the memorial to stay imply that the federal government is "supporting" one religion over another?.

I don't think it's necessarily supporting one religion over another that is the main problem. It's that having a cross on government land would mean that the government is supporting a certain religion in general.

Seperation of church and state means just that...A cross (or any other religious symbol) on government land is clearly not a seperation.

However, just take a peek at the dollar bill and you will see how seperated church and state really is.

I'm going to stay atop my fence post on this issue. I have issues with both sides.