Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 04, 2007, 10:34:13 AM
-
ACLU at it again. ::)
Tuesday, July 3, 2007 9:46 p.m. EDT
ACLU Sues City Over Jesus Painting
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city of Slidell, La., on Tuesday for displaying a painting of Jesus in a courthouse lobby, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The ACLU sued after the Slidell City Court refused to voluntarily remove the picture and a message below it that reads: "To Know Peace, Obey These Laws." The ACLU says the portrait — an image of Jesus presenting the New Testament — is a religious icon of the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity.
"We did not file this lawsuit because the ACLU is anti-religion ... We did file this lawsuit because we believe this display is clearly in violation of the law," said Vincent Booth, president and acting executive director of the Louisiana ACLU chapter.
The suit was filed on behalf of an unidentified person who complained to the ACLU about the picture. Named as defendants were the city of Slidell, St. Tammany Parish and City Judge James Lamz. St. Tammany Parish is being sued because it partially funds the court, the ACLU said.
On Saturday, Lamz said the picture would stay up unless a federal judge ordered it removed. He said he didn't believe the portrait violates the Constitution, but the issue should be decided in federal court.
Lamz could not comment Tuesday because of the pending litigation, his office said.
Before refusing to take the painting down, Lamz consulted Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who has argued before the Supreme Court.
Laycock said he told Lamz that the legal issues in the case aren't clear-cut and could set legal precedent.
"I don't know how far the two sides will want to push things," Laycock added.
The painting has been on display at the courthouse for nearly a decade and hadn't provoked any complaints prior to the ACLU's recent objections, said Michael Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian civil rights group representing the city and parish.
Johnson, whose group is often at odds with the ACLU, said the painting sends an inclusive message of equal justice under the law. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar displays in public forums are constitutional.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/3/214656.shtml?s=ic
-
Ya know, theres millions of PPL that are being trampled by the legal sys that they could help
instead of this.
-
Ya know, theres millions of PPL that are being trampled by the legal sys that they could help
instead of this.
Exactly. Clogging up the legal system with another dumb lawsuit.
-
Exactly. Clogging up the legal system with another dumb lawsuit.
Years back they got into it up by me here at Christmass time w/ all the small town public nativity scenes.
They gave it up after several losses. Thought they'd break the bank in some small towns.
I agree w/ lots of their causes sometime, but not that.
-
Years back they got into it up by me here at Christmass time w/ all the small town public nativity scenes.
They gave it up after several losses. Thought they'd break the bank in some small towns.
I agree w/ lots of their causes sometime, but not that.
I agree. They do some very good things, but they can be extremists.
-
Johnson, whose group is often at odds with the ACLU, said the painting sends an inclusive message of equal justice under the law. He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar displays in public forums are constitutional.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/3/214656.shtml?s=ic
I think that last paragraph is misleading. The issue at the heart of the ACLU case is not the "public forum",
but rather THIS PARTICULAR public forum, ...a court house, which is an instrument of the state.
-
I think that last paragraph is misleading. The issue at the heart of the ACLU case is not the "public forum",
but rather THIS PARTICULAR public forum, ...a court house, which is an instrument of the state.
Ya Ya they got all bent about the X-mass things on public land w/ Tax $'s too.
AN they got a point, and I aint no Bible thumper/ humper ..
BUT THERES BETTER THINGS TO SPEND LAWYER TIME ON >:(!
-
Ya Ya they got all bent about the X-mass things on public land w/ Tax $'s too.
AN they got a point, and I aint no Bible thumper/ humper ..
BUT THERES BETTER THINGS TO SPEND LAWYER TIME ON >:(!
Can't deny that, however, the ACLU has a mandate which they intend to follow.
The argument 'there's better things etc.,' is like saying "There are better things for the rich to spend money on than $17,000 pacifiers for their babies". No one can deny that, there are far better things upon which the wealthy can lavish their funds, ...however, it's their money and they should be permitted their shopping sprees no matter how overly indulgent you or I may deem them to be. Or do you not believe in the constitutional tenet of a separation between Church & State?
The only people I see these days publicly espousing such a union as ideal, ...are the Islamic fundamentalists.
Is this an area within which you find commonality between yourself and extremist Islamic fundamentalists?
Or is it that you believe that the separation of church & state is vital to maintaining and defending what's left of the constitutional principles laid out by the founding fathers? If so, would it then not behoove the ACLU to remain steadfast to it's mandate, rather than turn a blind eye to a threat to that constitution? ...especially in light of AlbertoGonsalesGate.
What say you? :)
-
Can't deny that, however, the ACLU has a mandate which they intend to follow.
The argument 'there's better things etc.,' is like saying "There are better things for the rich to spend money on than $17,000 pacifier's for their babies". No one can deny that, there are far better things upon which the wealthy can lavish their funds, ...however, it's their money and they should be permitted their shopping sprees no matter how overly indulgent you or I may deem them to be. Or do you not believe in the constitutional tenet of a separation between Church & State?
The only people I see these days publicly espousing such a union as ideal, ...are the Islamic fundamentalists.
Is this an area within which you find commonality between yourself and extremist Islamic fundamentalists?
Or is it that you believe that the separation of church & state is vital to maintaining and defending what's left of the constitutional principles laid out by the founding fathers? If so, would it then not behoove the ACLU to remain steadfast to it's mandate, rather than turn a blind eye to a threat to that constitution? ...especially in light of AlbertoGonsalesGate.
What say you? :)
Jag,does this sort of thing happen in Canada? serious question...what sort of laws do you have in regards to religeon and all that?
-
Jag,does this sort of thing happen in Canada? serious question...what sort of laws do you have in regards to religeon and all that?
Yes. We had a situation last year when someone complained about a Christmas tree in the front lobby of one of our courthouses. The complaint alledged that "as a person of another faith, to be greeted with a Christmas tree as soon as they walked in the front door felt like a slap in the face" ...or something like that. they felt that any decisions handed down in that courthouse could be based on religious beliefs and or dogma, and did not feel comfortable that decisions would be based on the law of the land. At the time, the information was passed around the office with no one being sure what to do about it. A judge at the courthouse decided it was an issue to be decided by the courts, and in the interim, the judge made the decision to temporarily remove it from the front entrance and place it elsewhere in the courthouse where those who wanted a Christmas tree can enjoy one.
A staffer at the courthouse got mad that the Christmas tree was taken from the front lobby and placed in a different room away from the public, and started a media brouhaha. When the shit hit the fan, it appeared that most people focussed NOT on what the judge decided to do to remedy the situation, as much as they did on the fact that the judge was both female AND Jewish. The TV and radio shows covered it and had callers voicing their opinions on it etc., Most people say they understood both what the judge did and why, ...just thought it was stupid. Some callers were extremely upset that their Christmas tree was removed from the front entrance. (That part cracked me up because the courthouse was in Toronto, but the caller was from Nortern Ontario. -- picture the difference between SanFrancisco & LosAngeles) We had a huge number of Muslims calling in to say they thought it was a joke and that PC had gone too far etc. Others called to say it was a bad decision because the Christmas tree is not a symbol of the Christian religion at all, it was stolen from the pagans because the Catholic church couldn't get the pagans to stop celebrating the winter solstice, so to say the X-mas tree in the courthouse lobby was promoting Christianity was incorrect. etc., etc., etc., It died down. Despite all the hoopin' & hollerin' tho, ...everyone seemed to agree that religious symbols really should not be placed in government institutions., ...but they were still pissed she moved the Christmas tree. go figure {shrug}
There was a huge brewhaha a while back because Toronto city council decided they would no longer call them Christmas Trees but rather Holiday Trees. I personally don't see the big deal. I've always been one to say Happy Holidays as opposed to Merry Christmas, simply because there are so many holidays around that time celebrated by so many people, ...it's just easier. Plus too, you never know what someone's religion is, and how deeply you can offend them to make an assumption. I wished a friend of mine in Utah a Merry Christmas last year. I thought the poor guy was going to have a coronary. Once he recovered, the guy nearly took my head off. ::) It had upset him so deeply. One of the hardest things was keeping a straight face, in the face of his verbal chastisement of me. I was soooo ready to bust out laughing, but to do that would only have compounded his displeasure. You see, he's an avowed atheist. The identical twin to the evangelicals who believe it is their duty & divine commandment to persistently proselytize, and shove their particular religion down your throat, ...whether you want it or not. :-\
-
Yes. We had a situation last year when someone complained about a Christmas tree in the front lobby of one of our courthouses. The complaint alledged that "as a person of another faith, to be greeted with a Christmas tree as soon as they walked in the front door felt like a slap in the face" ...or something like that. they felt that any decisions handed down in that courthouse could be based on religious beliefs and or dogma, and did not feel comfortable that decisions would be based on the law of the land. At the time, the information was passed around the office with no one being sure what to do about it. A judge at the courthouse decided it was an issue to be decided by the courts, and in the interim, the judge made the decision to temporarily remove it from the front entrance and place it elsewhere in the courthouse where those who wanted a Christmas tree can enjoy one.
A staffer at the courthouse got mad that the Christmas tree was taken from the front lobby and placed in a different room away from the public, and started a media brouhaha. When the shit hit the fan, it appeared that most people focussed NOT on what the judge decided to do to remedy the situation, as much as they did on the fact that the judge was both female AND Jewish. The TV and radio shows covered it and had callers voicing their opinions on it etc., Most people say they understood both what the judge did and why, ...just thought it was stupid. Some callers were extremely upset that their Christmas tree was removed from the front entrance. (That part cracked me up because the courthouse was in Toronto, but the caller was from Nortern Ontario. -- picture the difference between SanFrancisco & LosAngeles) We had a huge number of Muslims calling in to say they thought it was a joke and that PC had gone too far etc. Others called to say it was a bad decision because the Christmas tree is not a symbol of the Christian religion at all, it was stolen from the pagans because the Catholic church couldn't get the pagans to stop celebrating the winter solstice, so to say the X-mas tree in the courthouse lobby was promoting Christianity was incorrect. etc., etc., etc., It died down. Despite all the hoopin' & hollerin' tho, ...everyone seemed to agree that religious symbols really should not be placed in government institutions., ...but they were still pissed she moved the Christmas tree. go figure {shrug}
There was a huge brewhaha a while back because Toronto city council decided they would no longer call them Christmas Trees but rather Holiday Trees. I personally don't see the big deal. I've always been one to say Happy Holidays as opposed to Merry Christmas, simply because there are so many holidays around that time celebrated by so many people, ...it's just easier. Plus too, you never know what someone's religion is, and how deeply you can offend them to make an assumption. I wished a friend of mine in Utah a Merry Christmas last year. I thought the poor guy was going to have a coronary. Once he recovered, the guy nearly took my head off. ::) It had upset him so deeply. One of the hardest things was keeping a straight face, in the face of his verbal chastisement of me. I was soooo ready to bust out laughing, but to do that would only have compounded his displeasure. You see, he's an avowed atheist. The identical twin to the evangelicals who believe it is their duty & divine commandment to persistently proselytize, and shove their particular religion down your throat, ...whether you want it or not. :-\
1) I can see why SOME people would take notice the judge was jewish....but WTF does her gender have to do with
anything?
2) when your friend became all upset ,what you should have done was smile and say "hahahaha meltdown!!" ;D
-
1) I can see why SOME people would take notice the judge was jewish....but WTF does her gender have to do with anything?
2) when your friend became all upset ,what you should have done was smile and say "hahahaha meltdown!!" ;D
When machiavellian types seek to discredit someone with no basis, ...they appeal to all the prejudices they can find.
I chose to take a more sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, mea culpa approach instead. It worked. He started to put it in perspective, ...besides, I doubt the hahaha meltdown would be understood by anyone who doesn't post on Getbig
-
besides, I doubt the hahaha meltdown would be understood by anyone who doesn't post on Getbig
yeah...I was kid'n. :)
-
I think that last paragraph is misleading. The issue at the heart of the ACLU case is not the "public forum",
but rather THIS PARTICULAR public forum, ...a court house, which is an instrument of the state.
This is about the ACLU trying to cleanse all aspects of religion from public life.
-
This is a case of the ACLU intruding into our lives for the sake of one person. Since when does the minority rule here...I guess since the advent of the ACLU. Fuck them...they are a threat to freedom.
-
This is a case of the ACLU intruding into our lives for the sake of one person. Since when does the minority rule here...I guess since the advent of the ACLU. Fuck them...they are a threat to freedom.
They do some wierd shit man, didnt they fight to get David Duke on a ballot?
-
They do some wierd shit man, didnt they fight to get David Duke on a ballot?
They defended NAMBLA, but we've beaten that horse on here already. :)
-
They defended NAMBLA, but we've beaten that horse on here already. :)
Wow, I had to Goog NAMBLA ::) wtf.
Theres a point man.
-
Wow, I had to Goog NAMBLA ::) wtf.
Theres a point man.
Thank you. That's what I've said more than once when this subject has come up. You gotta draw the line somewhere.
-
They defended NAMBLA, but we've beaten that horse on here already. :)
HAHAHAHA YES!!! ;D
Seriously though we should send our troops to kill off the ACLU.
-
This is about the ACLU trying to cleanse all aspects of religion from public life.
I wouldn't go that far. I think the ACLU is definitely trying to disentangle religion from goverment.
This is a case of the ACLU intruding into our lives for the sake of one person. Since when does the minority rule here...I guess since the advent of the ACLU. Fuck them...they are a threat to freedom.
A threat to freedom, ...I suppose that all depends on your definition of freedom doesn't it?
I believe Diefenbaker (former Canadian Prime Minister) hit the nail on the head when he said:
"Freedom is the right to be wrong, ...not the right to do wrong" -- John Diefenbaker
Wow, I had to Goog NAMBLA ::) wtf.
Theres a point man.
You had to google it? If I'd known that, I wudda referred you to Rush Limbaugh's biggest sycophant I-One. He uses the name Coach these days, ...but he seems to know an awful lot about them. For a while there, he mentioned them just about every other post, ...even posted their weblink within the forum a few times. :-X
HAHAHAHA YES!!! ;D
Seriously though we should send our troops to kill off the ACLU.
It was hubris like that, and making light, of a very serious endeavor that got your troops into the hell they're in now.
You should send your troops home to their families, and loved ones, so they can get the love, comfort, and appreciation they deserve.
-
Jag, you aint tellin me Rush is Gay!? ???
-
This is all another example of wasted money and time over something that's no big deal. they (ACLU) should look for bigger fish to fry.
-
I wouldn't go that far. I think the ACLU is definitely trying to disentangle religion from goverment.
They can't. Religion is everywhere, including in government. On many of these religious issues, they are running around the country filing lawsuits on behalf of some dummy who gets offended when they see anything related to God and/or religion in the public sector. They are extremists.
-
I allways thought the only major difference between Fallwell and Khomeini was - clothing, hairstyle and language.
-
I allways thought the only major difference between Fallwell and Khomeini was - clothing, hairstyle and language.
don't forget deodorant ;D
-
For a while there, he mentioned them just about every other post, ...even posted their weblink within the forum a few times. :-X
I remember that... HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA WTF? HAHAHAHA
-
This is a ridiculous case. Religious proponents pull crap like this all the time. Remember when some judge had a 10 commandments monument put in his courthouse? It's a cloddish publicity stunt. It's so obvious that it's juvenile.
The people that put up these religious idols and symbols know that they are violating the law but they do it anyways for two reasons:
1. It bolsters the 'victim' status of certain religious groups so that they can cry "bias" and "discrimination".
2. The publicity casts a dim light on the ACLU even though it is in the right.
-
I think it's ridiculous too, but for a different reason. This isn't the Ten Commandments. It's artwork. The painting has been hanging for nearly ten years. One dummy is offended and in comes the anti-religious extremists crying foul. It is a waste of our tax dollars.
-
I think it's ridiculous too, but for a different reason. This isn't the Ten Commandments. It's artwork. The painting has been hanging for nearly ten years. One dummy is offended and in comes the anti-religious extremists crying foul. It is a waste of our tax dollars.
The rules re religious idols/icons in public venues is well established and long standing. Blame the guy hanging the art and not those taking the legally correct action.
But I do understand your frustration.
-
Consider this now a near "slam-dunk" case for the defense. The ADF has OWNED the ACLU in every case that it represents a client against the anti-Christian machine.
ADF attorneys will defend city of Slidell against ACLU attack on painting in rural La. courthouse
Tuesday, July 03, 2007, 11:16 AM (MST) |
ADF Media Relations | 480-444-0020
SLIDELL, La. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys have agreed to represent the city of Slidell and the parish of St. Tammany against the latest ACLU attack in Louisiana. In a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday, the ACLU seeks the removal of a courthouse lobby painting containing messages regarding equality and justice under the law because the painting is believed to depict an image of Jesus Christ.
“The First Amendment allows public officials, and not the ACLU, to decide what is appropriate for acknowledging our nation’s religious history and heritage. The painting clearly delivers an inclusive message of equal justice under the law,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. “It is mind-boggling that the ACLU would oppose such a widely cherished idea simply because it is offended by the image in the painting.”
“The ideas expressed in this painting aren’t specific to any one faith, and they certainly don’t establish a single state religion,” Johnson explained. “The reason Americans enjoy equal justice is because we are all ‘created equal, endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights.’ This painting is a clear reflection of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence.”
In a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist confirmed, “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause…. Examples of monuments and buildings reflecting the prominent role of religion abound. For example, the Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials all contain explicit invocations of God’s importance. The apex of the Washington Monument is inscribed ‘Laus Deo,’ which is translated to mean ‘Praise be to God,’ and multiple memorial stones in the monument contain Biblical citations.”
“Using the same arguments it brings to Slidell, will the ACLU advocate sandblasting the walls and halls of our nation’s capitol, including the chambers of the Supreme Court?” Johnson asked.
Recently, in another ADF-defended case, the ACLU had called for school board members in Tangipahoa Parish to be jailed for failing to prevent a student from praying at a school event and soon after compared those school board members to the 9/11 hijackers. Following Hurricane Katrina, the ACLU threatened to file suit to block a privately funded memorial on private ground because it included a cross.
-
The rules re religious idols/icons in public venues is well established and long standing. Blame the guy hanging the art and not those taking the legally correct action.
But I do understand your frustration.
There is no established rule that bans religious expression or artwork from public property. From the post by Colossus:
In a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist confirmed, “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause…. Examples of monuments and buildings reflecting the prominent role of religion abound. For example, the Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials all contain explicit invocations of God’s importance. The apex of the Washington Monument is inscribed ‘Laus Deo,’ which is translated to mean ‘Praise be to God,’ and multiple memorial stones in the monument contain Biblical citations.”
-
There is no established rule that bans religious expression or artwork from public property. From the post by Colossus:
In a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist confirmed, “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause…. Examples of monuments and buildings reflecting the prominent role of religion abound. For example, the Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials all contain explicit invocations of God’s importance. The apex of the Washington Monument is inscribed ‘Laus Deo,’ which is translated to mean ‘Praise be to God,’ and multiple memorial stones in the monument contain Biblical citations.”
Rhenquists' dicta is not determinative. There are multiple tests with multiple prongs that may be applied.
Portraits of Jesus Christ
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not use history to justify a portrait of Jesus Christ that had been hanging in the hallway outside the principal’s office in the Bloomingdale (Mich.) Secondary School for 30 years. In Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools (1994), a student at the school sued, alleging the display of Warner Sallman’s portrait, “Head of Christ,” violated the establishment clause. The U.S. District Court found the display to violate all three prongs of the Lemon test, and the 6th Circuit agreed, saying “[t]he school has not come up with a secular purpose. The portrait advances religion. Its display entangles the government with religion.” The defendants argued that the portrait “has meaning to all religions and that it is not inherently a symbol of Christianity.” The 6th Circuit disagreed, acknowledging that the outcome of the case would be different if the school had included other symbols of world religions on the wall, “ut Christ is central only to Christianity, and his portrait has a proselytizing, affirming effect that some non-believers find deeply offensive.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/..%5C/rel_liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=public_displays
I just don't see the secular purpose of Christ forking over the New Testament while brandishing the statement equating truth with the bible. "The portrait advances religion."
-
Rhenquists' dicta is not determinative. There are multiple tests with multiple prongs that may be applied.
Portraits of Jesus Christ
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not use history to justify a portrait of Jesus Christ that had been hanging in the hallway outside the principal’s office in the Bloomingdale (Mich.) Secondary School for 30 years. In Washegesic v. Bloomingdale Public Schools (1994), a student at the school sued, alleging the display of Warner Sallman’s portrait, “Head of Christ,” violated the establishment clause. The U.S. District Court found the display to violate all three prongs of the Lemon test, and the 6th Circuit agreed, saying “[t]he school has not come up with a secular purpose. The portrait advances religion. Its display entangles the government with religion.” The defendants argued that the portrait “has meaning to all religions and that it is not inherently a symbol of Christianity.” The 6th Circuit disagreed, acknowledging that the outcome of the case would be different if the school had included other symbols of world religions on the wall, “ut Christ is central only to Christianity, and his portrait has a proselytizing, affirming effect that some non-believers find deeply offensive.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/..%5C/rel_liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=public_displays
I just don't see the secular purpose of Christ forking over the New Testament while brandishing the statement equating truth with the bible. "The portrait advances religion."
I'm weighing an opinion from the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court against some judge on "the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals." Doesn't seem like much of a contest. :)
I think Rehnquist was correct: the First Amendment isn't about removing all religious expression from the public sector.
-
i agree religion has no place in a courtroom or a state/federal building. But i agree it's a waste of time and money to try and get every state & federal building free from the stuff.
If it offends someone they need to use a pole vault and get over it.
-
I'm weighing an opinion from the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court against some judge on "the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals." Doesn't seem like much of a contest. :)
I think Rehnquist was correct: the First Amendment isn't about removing all religious expression from the public sector.
hahaha....I'm not playing dualing judiciaries, I just picked a pre-written excerpt to show my point. This is one area of law that I find rather tedious. Too many tests and too many topics.
I just don't want to see the bleeding heart of Christ hanging on the courtroom wall. That always makes me think of the Blues Brothers when the boys go to visit the penguin...
-
hahaha....I'm not playing dualing judiciaries, I just picked a pre-written excerpt to show my point. This is one area of law that I find rather tedious. Too many tests and too many topics.
I just don't want to see the bleeding heart of Christ hanging on the courtroom wall. That always makes me think of the Blues Brothers when the boys go to visit the penguin...
:) Definitely tedious. Part of that is the result of people running around the country trying to sniff out religious expression on public property. We had a guy here who would literally scour the island for symbols and was successful at least once:
Kolekole Pass cross ordered dismantled
The Army says that fighting
a lawsuit against the religious icon
is too costly and impractical
By Gregg K. Kakesako
Star-Bulletin
Citing the severe economic impact in maintaining the 35-year-old, 35-ton white steel cross at Schofield Barrack's Kolekole Pass, the Army today ordered it dismantled.
The Army has been under fire from the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, which filed a federal lawsuit Sept. 11 charging the 37-foot cross, built with taxpayers' dollars in 1962, was a "blatant and obvious violation" of the First Amendment.
Maj. Gen. James T. Hill, 25th Infantry Division and U.S. Army Hawaii commander, said cost and practicality in fighting the lawsuit were reasons for taking down the cross.
Evan Shirley, attorney for Hawaii Citizens, said he hasn't been told of the Army's decision but the group is "genuinely pleased" to hear that the Army will remove the Christian icon.
"If this is true," Shirley said, "the action sends a strong message that the wall between state and church stands tall and forbids government from endorsing Christianity in particular over other religions."
The Army said it will cost as much as $60,000 this year to maintain the cross, which is no longer used for Easter Sunday sunrise services. The area is too small, and the services are now held on Cannoneer Field at Schofield Barracks.
The cross is just one of several military facilities that will have to be demolished because of severe cuts in the Army's local budget.
This is the second religious symbol it has had to give up.
A nearly identical lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Jewish War Veterans in 1988 resulted in a 65-foot cross at Camp Smith being removed.
That cross was dismantled after a federal court ruled that it violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
It was replaced with an 80-foot flagpole which still flies a 38-foot-by-20-foot American flag. A slab of the cross is preserved in a framed glass box on the wall near the entrance to Camp Smith headquarters.
The Kolekole cross was erected in 1962 and cost $4,413. Earlier versions of the cross were made of wood and were erected as early as the 1920s.
Shortly after World War II, a 25-foot wooden cross was erected, and the steel replacement has been up since 1962.
http://starbulletin.com/97/10/20/news/story2.html
-
I allways thought the only major difference between Fallwell and Khomeini was - clothing, hairstyle and language.
I think Khomeini had a few more wrinkles, ...but other than that, yep... 2 sides of the same coin. :-\
-
You had to google it? If I'd known that, I wudda referred you to Rush Limbaugh's biggest sycophant I-One. He uses the name Coach these days, ...but he seems to know an awful lot about them. For a while there, he mentioned them just about every other post, ...even posted their weblink within the forum a few times. :-X
I know enough to know that they are liberal backed and those scumb from the ACLU defend them...........you're a liberal...right?
-
I know enough to know that they are liberal backed and those scumb from the ACLU defend them...........you're a liberal...right?
How could they be liberal backed, ...when all the politicians living their lifestyle seem to be Republican?
Remember Mark Foley? Co-chair of the congressional committee on missing & exploited children?
We know them, not by what they say, ...but rather by what they do.
-
How could they be liberal backed, ...when all the politicians living their lifestyle seem to be Republican?
Remember Mark Foley? Co-chair of the congressional committee on missing & exploited children?
We know them, not by what they say, ...but rather by what they do.
Don't get me started, you'll lose.
-
Don't get me started, you'll lose.
I doubt that, ...but I know I'll be amused.