jazzgeek
The Rule Of Thirds.
Which raises the question:
If I were to breed a Fox News to a National Enquirer, would I get a TMZ?
:grin01:
Dale
-
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.
- Thread starter COerriccaRN
- Start date
- Status
Which raises the question:
If I were to breed a Fox News to a National Enquirer, would I get a TMZ?
:grin01:
Dale
glenhead
Elder curmudgeon
Sorry, but it IS on federal land, land that was acquired by the gov't in 1994. Again, sorry, but the cross wasn't illegal when it was erected in 1939, either - it was on private land for 55 years after it was put up. After the suit to remove it was filed, "they" (don't know who) tried to get one acre of the land containing the cross deeded back to "someone", but the transaction was deemed (somehow) unconstitutional (still having problems finding the part of the Constitution that deals with real estate transactions, but I admit ignorance in this arena).
People keep talking about the "separation of church and state" as though it was explicitly delineated in the Constitution. It's not, and that's where the slight tinge of gray comes into the discussion. The phrase comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group (or church, don't remember) in which he wrote that the intent of the drafters was that the "legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state". Leaving an existing religious device on land acquired by the gov't does not, in my opinion, imply the gov't trying to establish a religion. Your opinion may differ, but that's my opinion.
I still come back to the question of why it's ok for some religious doo-dads to stay on federal property (like complete churches, e.g., or missions, or totem poles, or kivas) but not others. You want to talk precedent? There's plenty of precedent for a religious doo-dad being grandfathered-in after the federal gov't "acquires" a property that was formerly privately owned. Check the National Parks Service for churches, missions, Native American religious sites (not associated with reservations, those are outside the purview of the U.S. gov't). I suppose it's ok just because the almighty ACLU says so, all bow down? And how did they decide this particular doo-dad is, after 68 years in the same place, suddenly offensive? Why wasn't it offensive when the land was "acquired" by the gov't 13 years earlier? (The ACLU first filed for its removal in 2007, hence the shorter timespans.) Yes the cross has been replaced three(?) times. In many instances, that would otherwise be termed "maintenance", so long as the overall thing remains pretty much the same. If they'd replaced a Star of David with a cross, it'd be different, but replacing or rebuilding the same basic shape seems more maintenance-oriented to me. But here I am trying to be rational again...
By the bye, someone posted several thousand posts ago that the ACLU represents 100% of American citizens. I must respectfully, but rather vehemently, disagree with this statement. I didn't have anything to do with electing them, and AFAIK neither did anyone else. They represent their viewpoint, or the viewpoint of someone who somehow perceives a "slight" or that their "liberties" are somehow being impinged upon, someone who wishes to impose their viewpoint on the rest of us, whether we want it or not.
Yes, but only if you share.
Last edited:
ZoologyGirl
Under Tank Heather
Are you being serious? Since when did the constitution only apply to the government? The problem is not who put it up, but where it is (on government land). I remember a few years ago around Christmas time there was a nativity scene put up on a local city hall property. Instead of complaining about it, a group of pagans instead put up their own pentagram in the same general vicinity. It wasn't until that pentagram was put up that people started having a hissy fit. The nativity scene was put up by city hall workers...the pentagram was put up by citizens. By your account the pentagram had a right to stay, the nativity scene should go.
:roflmao: again, are you being serious.
Before you go all guns a waving with this 'not on federal land' stuff...you might want to look it up. It is in the Mojave National Preserve...part of the US National Park Service...which is run by the government
I'm in 100% agreeance with you. I'm a fence sitter on the issue, and because I'm a fence sitter and not about to do anything about it you could argue that I'm moreso on the leave it alone side. The only people I am in disagreeance with really are the people who are extremely, strongly for this to stay... and yet you just know that some of them, if it was a non-christian religious symbol being used as a memorial, would be strongly against it. (It is those 'some of them' that I am in disagreeance with)
diamondlil
Mice! They taste so nice!
I'll thank you not to shout at me. You have enough experience to know that in this context, using capital letters is like shouting. Making an argument louder doesn't make the case for it stronger.
Emily1188
Smells Like a Rat
Oh... crap...
Guess I'll have to reconsider my tactics for the next class debate... Back to the drawing board!
ZoologyGirl
Under Tank Heather
Oh... crap...
Guess I'll have to reconsider my tactics for the next class debate... Back to the drawing board!
I would try penguins. Hold up pictures of penguins and people will just be drawn to you. Especially if you can find a purple penguin.
ForkedTung
Serpent Mound Monk
you are so misguided. Remember what I said about the cotton.
diamondlil
Mice! They taste so nice!
Or sparkly things if I'm in the room, sparkly things always distract me!
desertanimal
2003 UB313
Good one.
Sorry--usually I try not to be the spelling police; this thread had just gotten me momentarily cranky. :awcrap:
ZoologyGirl
Under Tank Heather
It's the fabric of our lives?
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
Ok...so...Heroin is illegal, but as long as I use iot to stay healthy, and not to get high, it's OK?
The violation of the Constitutiona is because the government is allowing it to stay up...on National Park Service land.
Freedom of Speech does not apply to erecting private memorials on public property. Contrary to what you might think, Freedom of Seech is not a blanket-right that will allow you to do or say whatever you want.
Again...the basis of the Church and State argument is the fact that Congress, in 2002, decided to rule inf avor of a religous symbol being on public land. Clearly, that is a violation, regrdless of the intent behind the religious symbol, or who put it there.
It's been there for 58 years, and it DOES get taken down, changed, painted, and maintained. ALL National Parks are Federal Land. And it is the Mojave Nature Preserve, which is maintained and controlled by the National Park Service...or "my tax dollars"...and I don't want a cross there. Neither do the Native Americans that call the Mojave a Spiritual Place, and have since long before "we" came here.
I know that it is on Federal Land. I know this for a fact. I can't quite figure out what you know...and I'm going to stop trying...
Well...you're half right, and that's part of the problem. It wasn't erected by the government, and it is on Federal/Public land. If it was erected by the government as a veteran's memorial, it would NOT be a single white cross. That's the point...
It does if you actually comprehend the topic and the constitutionality of a group of private individuals erecting a religious symbol on public land...
We are only "loosing"(sic) patriotism because too many people are convinced that patriotic and Christian are synonomous. Unfortunately for you, and most conservative Christians, republican zealots, and biased conservative pundits...it simply isn't true. But you can keep saying it, if it makes you feel better...
It IS on Federal Land(that's precisely what a "National Park" is), and the fact that the government did NOT put it up is part of the problem. Read it slowly so you'll get it this time.
You're welcome to your opinion.
Yes...it is...
Please read the whole topic, before you do...
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
Do everyone, including yourself, a favor and read the topic...please...
Sure it is. Watch..."I hate the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, and I believe we need to extricate ourselves as soon as safely and reasonably possibly. However, every single service man and woman that is currently fighting or that has ever put on a uniform to defend my freedoms has my undying and eternal love, respect and appreciation. Me and my family will always hold every single one of you as near and dear to our hearts as we can. May you all be blessed and come home safely."
See? That's really not difficult to do at all...
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
Private memorials that are on land acquired by the government for use as a National Park are removed all the time when the park is made. It's part of making a National Park. The government acquires the land, removes any man-made structures it does not wish to maintain or display, and creates a National Park. It's part of the process in most cases.
It may not establish a religious, but it absolutely holds one religion in higher esteem than all others, and gives freedoms to one that are not granted to others. In my humble opinion, this is precisely the ideal behind the Seperation of Church and State. Fair enough if we disagree.
Churches that are deemed historical, such as the Alamo, are brought in and maintained by the government as part of the historical displays within the park. Other religions are represented in this manner as well, such as Native American totems, Japenese totems at the Manzanar Site, and I'm quite certain other religions at other locations. Primarily, these instances have an historical significance that is far greater than merely a symbol of the religion. Most of the time they also have archaeological and sociological impact as well.
That was me. And I assure you...if your civil rights are violated, and you make a claim to the ACLU, and they deem your case is a legitimate instance of Civil Rights abuse...they will take your case.
For the record, you don't have to elect someone in order for them to be willing to represent you. The ACLU takes cases that it feels are significant in preserving the rights and liberties of all citizens. None of us are always going to agree with the ACLU, and the stances it takes. But certainly we can agree that it is better to someone willing to fight these legal battles, than to have nothing. Wouldn't you agree?
Finally we agree...
Honestly, glenhead, I do not mean to be disrespectful, and I certainly hope my posts are not coming off as such. You make very good points.
In this instance, as I said, I am not firmly on one side or the other. I see the argument, and understand the argument, from both sides. Certainly it is an easy "memorial" to ignore. My problem is with the precedent that it can establish. I believe that it is in this spirit that the ACLU has taken the case, not one of spite or malice. Certainly, it is in this spirit that I, personally, am debating the issue.
screw the cross. if it gets taken down, oh well. i still love all troops and veterans. if its stays up, heck, ill pay for a bucket of paint for it every year if noone else wants to put their precious $.02 of tax money towards it.
I do believe one thing though, it should be up to whoever owns the land. and this is our government. this should not be such a big argument as it is. i think we should put our energy to something more important.
SAVE THE DINOSAURS
I do believe one thing though, it should be up to whoever owns the land. and this is our government. this should not be such a big argument as it is. i think we should put our energy to something more important.
SAVE THE DINOSAURS
tyflier
[Insert Witty Commentary]
And CLUB BABY SEALS!!!
Oh wait...sorry...I got carried away...
thats the spirit.
no its not.
glenhead
Elder curmudgeon
I try - that's why I don't get groceries in plastic bags. The more oil we save, the fewer dinosaurs have to die.
Back in the '70s and early '80s, when they used to set up tables for the Save the Baby Seals Foundation and solicit money, they'd get REALLY UPSET if you'd ask them to save one for you, then ask if you could bring your own baseball bat.
Maybe I can sic the ACLU on them for impinging my right to use my own bat. I have a nice bat. It's very smooooooooth and black. I love my bat. Please can I use my own bat? IwannausemybatpleasecanIcanI...
Hypancistrus
New member
Excellent. :grin01:
- Status