Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 04, 2014, 09:15:43 AM
-
Paranoid anti-religious extremists crying again. "Steven Lowe, a plaintiff from Washington, said was "shocked" when he first saw the cross and is "upset" whenever he passes it, according to the complaint obtained by the newspaper." Waaah! ::)
Humanist group sues to remove cross-shaped WWI memorial in Maryland
Published March 04, 2014FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/660/371/crossmd12.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
The American Humanist Association is suing to take down the 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Cross World War I memorial in Prince George's County. (MYFOXDC.COM)
A humanist advocacy group has filed a federal lawsuit to remove a cross-shaped World War I memorial in Prince George's County, alleging the display violates the First Amendment.
The American Humanist Association says it does not object to the fact that the Bladensburg Cross memorializes soldiers, but rather the placement of the Christian symbol on property owned by a government agency, The Daily Record reported.
"We are certainly recommending coming up with a monument inclusive of all religious groups," said Monica Miller, a lawyer with the association's Appignani Humanist Legal Center.
In 2012, the group sent a letter to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission demanding that the cross be removed from the war memorial. The group said it would have no objection if the cross was on private land, MyFoxDC.com reported.
John Moss, the town's administrator, said the Bladensburg Cross is not endorsing any faith.
"The cross memorializes our veterans," he told The Daily Record. "It was never meant to be a religious icon."
The 40-foot-tall concrete memorial was erected in 1925 by the American Legion to commemorate the 49 men of Prince George's County who died during World War I.
The monument was initially owned by the state but was deeded in 1960 to the commission, which administers regional parks in Montgomery and Prince George's counties. The monument was restored and rededicated in 1965, according to The Daily Record.
According to the report, the lawsuit names as plaintiffs two local American Humanist Association members and a third individual -- each of whom had "unwelcome contact" with the monument.
Steven Lowe, a plaintiff from Washington, said was "shocked" when he first saw the cross and is "upset" whenever he passes it, according to the complaint obtained by the newspaper.
"He believes that the Bladensburg Cross associates a Christian religious symbol with the state and gives the impression that the state supports and approves of Christianity, as opposed to other religions, and that the state may even prefer Christians and Christianity over other religions," the complaint reads.
Moss, the town administrator, told The Daily Record this is the first time a lawsuit has been filed to remove the Bladensburg Cross. He said the memorial has "historic and patriotic" value.
"There are community members that would be disturbed if the cross were removed," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/04/humanist-group-sues-to-remove-cross-shaped-wwi-memorial-in-maryland/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Surprised that it didn't happen sooner.
-
Took some crybaby 89 years to claim they are emotionally wounded by looking at this WWI memorial.
-
Took some crybaby 89 years to claim they are emotionally wounded by looking at this WWI memorial.
Yes, because it has only been in recent years that the fucking troglodytes of this society started springing up. It is only natural, and is where we are heading, much like France and the rest of the secular nations with their socialism and general apathy. Fuck them all, I hope this guy who says it "makes him ill" dies.
-
Pretty stupid waste of time and money.
-
This guys' face upsets me every time I see it...he should go> his words, thoughts and deeds piss me off...he should leave. Where does this shit end....
-
This guys' face upsets me every time I see it...he should go> his words, thoughts and deeds piss me off...he should leave. Where does this shit end....
Who? (I didn't see a pic of anyone at the link in the OP.)
-
In general......the guy bothers me...what makes his feelings anymore important then mine. He's a douchbag and should be beaten with a bat until his head falls off. At some point he needs to be made to understand his continued existence and the safety of his family are and were predicated on the sacrifices made by the people that cross represents. They are far more important then he is. Their sacrifices burnt into the pages of history carry far more weight then some asshole who is momentarily offended as he drives by. Shocked and upset....I bet the kids charged with running through German machinegun fire were shocked and upset as well. I bet the kids who puked up their lungs on mustard gas were also very upset. They matter more then this guy and deserve that memorial. Fuck him.....
-
Paranoid anti-religious extremists crying again. "Steven Lowe, a plaintiff from Washington, said was "shocked" when he first saw the cross and is "upset" whenever he passes it, according to the complaint obtained by the newspaper." Waaah! ::)
Humanist group sues to remove cross-shaped WWI memorial in Maryland
Published March 04, 2014FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/660/371/crossmd12.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
The American Humanist Association is suing to take down the 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Cross World War I memorial in Prince George's County. (MYFOXDC.COM)
A humanist advocacy group has filed a federal lawsuit to remove a cross-shaped World War I memorial in Prince George's County, alleging the display violates the First Amendment.
The American Humanist Association says it does not object to the fact that the Bladensburg Cross memorializes soldiers, but rather the placement of the Christian symbol on property owned by a government agency, The Daily Record reported.
"We are certainly recommending coming up with a monument inclusive of all religious groups," said Monica Miller, a lawyer with the association's Appignani Humanist Legal Center.
In 2012, the group sent a letter to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission demanding that the cross be removed from the war memorial. The group said it would have no objection if the cross was on private land, MyFoxDC.com reported.
John Moss, the town's administrator, said the Bladensburg Cross is not endorsing any faith.
"The cross memorializes our veterans," he told The Daily Record. "It was never meant to be a religious icon."
The 40-foot-tall concrete memorial was erected in 1925 by the American Legion to commemorate the 49 men of Prince George's County who died during World War I.
The monument was initially owned by the state but was deeded in 1960 to the commission, which administers regional parks in Montgomery and Prince George's counties. The monument was restored and rededicated in 1965, according to The Daily Record.
According to the report, the lawsuit names as plaintiffs two local American Humanist Association members and a third individual -- each of whom had "unwelcome contact" with the monument.
Steven Lowe, a plaintiff from Washington, said was "shocked" when he first saw the cross and is "upset" whenever he passes it, according to the complaint obtained by the newspaper.
"He believes that the Bladensburg Cross associates a Christian religious symbol with the state and gives the impression that the state supports and approves of Christianity, as opposed to other religions, and that the state may even prefer Christians and Christianity over other religions," the complaint reads.
Moss, the town administrator, told The Daily Record this is the first time a lawsuit has been filed to remove the Bladensburg Cross. He said the memorial has "historic and patriotic" value.
"There are community members that would be disturbed if the cross were removed," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/04/humanist-group-sues-to-remove-cross-shaped-wwi-memorial-in-maryland/?intcmp=latestnews
You are a walking contradiction. Would you not be outraged if say it was the star of David? it's a public place, why would they use a religious symbol specific to a specific religion of thousands to honor people who were probably of non-christian belief?
It's arrogant and insensitive. Perhaps a muslim american died in the war? it's stupid and petty and uneccesary. A more neutral symbol could be used no? you are either unaware or completely secure in your bigotry.
Why can they simply choose a neutral symbol?
-
Hey those on the right, is this not a breach of your constitution? seperation of church and state? yet a mod on the fucking political board does the mocking?
Can't have our guns, but fuck you accept christianity.
You guys are the typical moron hypocrites, using self serving bible verses and waving the constitution like you care about it.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Here is an analogy, to help you understand your hypocrisy.
Say you are for freedom of speech, yet you censor speech that you don;t like, it's like you insulting a muslim citing freedom of speech then when he returns the favor you are bizzaro ron paul
-
I don't think a cross always has to be a symbal of god especially at death,look at all the graves that have a cross I don't think they are all for Christianity, some are just a marker
-
You are a walking contradiction. Would you not be outraged if say it was the star of David? it's a public place, why would they use a religious symbol specific to a specific religion of thousands to honor people who were probably of non-christian belief?
It's arrogant and insensitive. Perhaps a muslim american died in the war? it's stupid and petty and uneccesary. A more neutral symbol could be used no? you are either unaware or completely secure in your bigotry.
Why can they simply choose a neutral symbol?
No, I would not be outraged if someone erected a Star of David symbol as part of a WWI memorial 89 years ago.
Why do they need a neutral symbol? Minority rights need to be protected, but the majority doesn't have to be silenced either. If the majority of the community wants a memorial to honor those who scarified their lives for their country, I really don't care if a handful of people are offended. There is nothing offensive about that memorial.
-
I can't find nowhere that this is a symbol of Christianity
this is from the internets :D
Known also as “Peace Cross.” The Snyder-Farmer Post of the American Legion of Hyattsville erected the forty foot cross of cement and marble to recall the forty-nine men of Prince George’s County who died in World War I. The cross was dedicated on July 13, 1925, by the American Legion. A bronze tablet at the base of the monument contains the unforgettable words of Woodrow Wilson: “The right is more precious than the peace; we shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts; to such a task we dedicate ourselves.” At the base of the monument are the words, “Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion.” At its heart, the cross bears a great gold star.
-
Blacken wins the ....not a leftist douchbag award.
This was a war memorial...we used to be a country that honored its dead and didn't worry about hurt feelings. This didn't bother anybody for 89 years.
-
I can't believe there is someone in this thread defending this guys law suit. Seriously. I'm agnostic/atheist and have no issue with it. It's a marker for the fifty or so dudes from that town that died in one of the largest conflicts in the history of the world. Who cares?
-
Tricky issue.
Easiest thing would be to have the city just sell the tiniest possible portion of land on which the monument sits to a private owner.
I'm sure rich dudes would line up to be the one to save the monument.
-
Tricky issue.
Easiest thing would be to have the city just sell the tiniest possible portion of land on which the monument sits to a private owner.
I'm sure rich dudes would line up to be the one to save the monument.
Why should they have to do anything?
-
Why should they have to do anything?
Well, I'm not saying the SHOULD have to do anything.
I'm saying what they could do. And one reason would be to avoid a lawsuit.
-
No, I would not be outraged if someone erected a Star of David symbol as part of a WWI memorial 89 years ago.
Why do they need a neutral symbol? Minority rights need to be protected, but the majority doesn't have to be silenced either. If the majority of the community wants a memorial to honor those who scarified their lives for their country, I really don't care if a handful of people are offended. There is nothing offensive about that memorial.
Ok then you are one of the odd ones. It doesn't offend me in the slightest either, I wouldn't waste a single fucking breath talking about this.
Well let's go through this, you are for the use of publicly funded property being used for religious propaganda? even if say some of those who died wouldn't want a cross to represent them? are you out to lunch?
It's PUBLIC property, that's why you need a neutral symbol, fuck are you really that ignorant? it's PUBLIC PROPERTY. no one group gets to use it as they please. Do you not agree with this or are you fine when it suits your views?
Let me guess you think the US was founded on christianity, hitler was an atheist and darwin caused the holocaust right?
-
HEHEHEHEHE!!
That idiot is "upset" by a cross.
A lot more things going on in this country that should "upset" him a lot more.
That cross is in memory of the dead. The dead don't care.
Why do we allow chumps like that dictate to an entire community what they should and shouldn't do?
-
I don't think a cross always has to be a symbal of god especially at death,look at all the graves that have a cross I don't think they are all for Christianity, some are just a marker
Sure I buy it, but those are graves of people, not public property.You can have what you like.
-
Ok then you are one of the odd ones. It doesn't offend me in the slightest either, I wouldn't waste a single fucking breath talking about this.
Well let's go through this, you are for the use of publicly funded property being used for religious propaganda? even if say some of those who died wouldn't want a cross to represent them? are you out to lunch?
It's PUBLIC property, that's why you need a neutral symbol, fuck are you really that ignorant? it's PUBLIC PROPERTY. no one group gets to use it as they please. Do you not agree with this or are you fine when it suits your views?
Let me guess you think the US was founded on christianity, hitler was an atheist and darwin caused the holocaust right?
I don't know what you mean by "religious propaganda."
Who cares if it's "PUBLIC property"? We have religious symbols all over "PUBLIC property." Have you ever been to DC?
Let me guess, you've never actually read the U.S. Constitution, never been to the U.S., and don't know anything about the First Amendment, right?
-
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or ...
Establishing a State religion - church of England.
Impeding the free exercise of religion - taking down that cross because some asshole is offended sounds like that to me.
Supreme court ruling - " it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' Yeah not here......worry about Canada doc.
-
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or ...
Establishing a State religion - church of England.
Impeding the free exercise of religion - taking down that cross because some asshole is offended sounds like that to me.
Supreme court ruling - " it is declared 'that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.' Yeah not here......worry about Canada doc.
:)
-
I apologize from using wiki but it got to the heart of the matter....
-
I don't know what you mean by "religious propaganda."
Who cares if it's "PUBLIC property"? We have religious symbols all over "PUBLIC property." Have you ever been to DC?
Let me guess, you've never actually read the U.S. Constitution, never been to the U.S., and don't know anything about the First Amendment, right?
I know you do, the point is they shouldn't be there, and only now are people flexing there rights on the christians who think they are exempt from the rules
It's public property, aka everyones, not christians, why don't you step down from your pedestal and look around, you aren't special and the people complaining have every right too. Lets also not skirt the issue, a cross is a christian symbol, why choose that is beyond me. It's implicitly stating a christian leaning on public property.
All of the vestiges of the bronze age should be thrown out. The ten commandments are terrible also. If that's teh ten best rules then we are all fucked. Take it down, the skydaddy won't mind, he never has.
-
Dude...likes make it clear...you are not American. Christians are the majority in this country. 99% don't push their religion into anybody's faces. The numbers that do are consistent with other groups that do the same and all are very small. That cross is a war memorial...that's it. People fucking died for it.....go milk a maple tree "doc" and stop worrying about our constitutional rights and who's offended by what here.
-
I know you do, the point is they shouldn't be there, and only now are people flexing there rights on the christians who think they are exempt from the rules
It's public property, aka everyones, not christians, why don't you step down from your pedestal and look around, you aren't special and the people complaining have every right too. Lets also not skirt the issue, a cross is a christian symbol, why choose that is beyond me. It's implicitly stating a christian leaning on public property.
All of the vestiges of the bronze age should be thrown out. The ten commandments are terrible also. If that's teh ten best rules then we are all fucked. Take it down, the skydaddy won't mind, he never has.
Again, who cares if it's public property? Since you care about what happens in the United States so much, perhaps you should take the time to educate yourself about our Constitution, rules, etc.?
-
Well, I'm not saying the SHOULD have to do anything.
I'm saying what they could do. And one reason would be to avoid a lawsuit.
Do you think the suit is valid or frivolous?
-
Again, who caires if it's public property? Since you care about what happens in the United States so much, perhaps you should take the time to educate yourself about our Constitution, rules, etc.?
Because public property is government funded, and this can be seen as an endorsement of a particluar religion.
Are you this dense or trolling?
Also, who gives a fuck if they have shit in DC. Just because you are doing something doesn't mean it's right, do you lynch blacks?
I don't care what happens, I am wasting time arguing instead of jerking off to porn, you are reading a bit to much into this. You don't know what you are talking about, as usual. You will run away now or change the subject.
Do you have any education at all? public property is funded by EVERYONE, the government doesn't get to pick and fucking choose what religious shit to endorse. There should be seperation of church and state, you don't want that though.
I am not arguing the cross, I hope those people die tomorrow, I don't give any fucks, but I do give a fuck about idiots twisting the truth.
Do you need more explanation or is the above clear enough as to why the PUBLIC part is important. Did you know that the gov is suppose to represent and cater to as many people as possible with public land?
Your argument is essentially an elitist christian response, wah wah, suffer us. To bad religion is dying as we become more intelligent, as you age and everyone you know dies, you will be alone with atheists.
Notice how as we progress as people we shake off mysticism? the sky god, thor, spirits, fairies, the mothman etc etc..
Also, when I see jesus hanging on that cross I can't think of all the kids that got raped in his name.
-
Because public property is government funded, and this can be seen as an endorsement of a particluar religion.
I agree with this. but not for old crap. waste of time and money
-
I agree with this. but not for old crap. waste of time and money
Beach bum doesn't understand the difference nor the constitution. There is nothing to fucking agree with, it's not an opinion or my feelings, its a fact.
The government shall not endorse any religion, the use of public (shared) property is an extension of this, we have seen this in many court cases also. Beach bum thinks that mob rules, who cares if some people are teed off, he isn't so it doesn't matter. Despite my biases I don't pick and choose how to apply laws, ethics and morals on my whim, it's a fact.
-
Do you think the suit is valid or frivolous?
Honestly, I'm not sure. It depends on what the relevant laws say and I don't have any legal training.
I'm fairly certain, though, that there are folks that exist who would be genuinely offended by it.
The monument does look like a giant Christian cross on public property so I can understand why some would see it as a government endorsement of Christianity.
I will say that I'm not in favor of tearing it down or moving it but have a problem with just ignoring the law to do that.
I think the city should look into having it declared a historical landmark (or something along those lines) so that they have a legal basis for keeping it.
-
That would solve it. Until the guy bitches again....
-
Beach bum doesn't understand the difference nor the constitution. There is nothing to fucking agree with, it's not an opinion or my feelings, its a fact.
The government shall not endorse any religion, the use of public (shared) property is an extension of this, we have seen this in many court cases also. Beach bum thinks that mob rules, who cares if some people are teed off, he isn't so it doesn't matter. Despite my biases I don't pick and choose how to apply laws, ethics and morals on my whim, it's a fact.
I wasn't referring to what BB thought. I was simply stating i agreed with the law, but didn't agree with wasting time and money tearing stuff down, suits, etc. to get things form the past changed just because ignorant do-gooder jack ass thinks so and religion hurts his feelings. And i am not a fan of religion at all.
-
I wasn't referring to what BB thought. I was simply stating i agreed with the law, but didn't agree with wasting time and money tearing stuff down, suits, etc. to get things form the past changed just because ignorant do-gooder jack ass thinks so and religion hurts his feelings. And i am not a fan of religion at all.
I was more so using your post to get on my soapbox and be pedantic.
-
Honestly, I'm not sure. It depends on what the relevant laws say and I don't have any legal training.
I'm fairly certain, though, that there are folks that exist who would be genuinely offended by it.
The monument does look like a giant Christian cross on public property so I can understand why some would see it as a government endorsement of Christianity.
I will say that I'm not in favor of tearing it down or moving it but have a problem with just ignoring the law to do that.
I think the city should look into having it declared a historical landmark (or something along those lines) so that they have a legal basis for keeping it.
Its going too far. What about military cemeteries that have crosses on them?
People need to let it go and concentrate on other matters, real problems.
-
I was more so using your post to get on my soapbox and be pedantic.
ok ;D
-
Because public property is government funded, and this can be seen as an endorsement of a particluar religion.
Are you this dense or trolling?
Also, who gives a fuck if they have shit in DC. Just because you are doing something doesn't mean it's right, do you lynch blacks?
I don't care what happens, I am wasting time arguing instead of jerking off to porn, you are reading a bit to much into this. You don't know what you are talking about, as usual. You will run away now or change the subject.
Do you have any education at all? public property is funded by EVERYONE, the government doesn't get to pick and fucking choose what religious shit to endorse. There should be seperation of church and state, you don't want that though.
I am not arguing the cross, I hope those people die tomorrow, I don't give any fucks, but I do give a fuck about idiots twisting the truth.
Do you need more explanation or is the above clear enough as to why the PUBLIC part is important. Did you know that the gov is suppose to represent and cater to as many people as possible with public land?
Your argument is essentially an elitist christian response, wah wah, suffer us. To bad religion is dying as we become more intelligent, as you age and everyone you know dies, you will be alone with atheists.
Notice how as we progress as people we shake off mysticism? the sky god, thor, spirits, fairies, the mothman etc etc..
Also, when I see jesus hanging on that cross I can't think of all the kids that got raped in his name.
This is funny coming from the self-proclaimed troll. :) You don't understand how that whole church/state separation thing works. But you get somewhat of a pass, because you're Canadian.
In any event, it is extremely simplistic to say that public funds or public property cannot involve religion or religious symbols, etc. That's not the way our Constitution was written (see headhunter's post about that). The issue is of establishment of religion, not whether property or funds are in any way involved. Otherwise, we would not have a chaplain on the U.S. Senate payroll, giving prayers on the Senate floor. We wouldn't have government funded chaplains in the military. We would not have the religious symbols and words plastered all over public property, from courthouses, to money, to government buildings, etc.
But it's good that you are least smart enough to see how ridiculous this cross thing is.
-
Its going too far. What about military cemeteries that have crosses on them?
Good point.
After a little googling, I found this link: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/aclu-and-cemetary-crosses/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/aclu-and-cemetary-crosses/)
Apparently the ACLU has said that the never and will never sue to remove religious symbols from cemeteries. Further, the only related suits they've been a part of were to have some sort of Wiccan religious symbol be included in the large group of religious symbols that the military will allow to adorn military cemetery headstones.
People need to let it go and concentrate on other matters, real problems.
I don't agree here. Settle the issue so as to have precedent for future similar issues is what I think.
And, actually, this has already been done it seems. (So let the offended guy sue because it looks like he's gonna lose and lose quickly.) From the link above:
In 2001, for example, the ACLU of Southern California sued for removal of the Mojave Desert Cross at Sunrise Rock, which stood on land that had become part of a national preserve run by the National Park Service. That long and tangled legal battle continues and is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Update, April 28, 2010: The high court later ruled against the ACLU in that case, allowing the cross to stand. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm.")
-
This is funny coming from the self-proclaimed troll. :) You don't understand how that whole church/state separation thing works. But you get somewhat of a pass, because you're Canadian.
In any event, it is extremely simplistic to say that public funds or public property cannot involve religion or religious symbols, etc.
...
Not sure if you're doing it deliberately or not but you seem to be trying to reframe Necrosis' argument.
Didn't Necrosis write, "...the government doesn't get to pick and fucking choose what religious shit to endorse."?
That doesn't seem to mean "...cannot involve religion or religious symbols, etc." -- It would seem to mean the gov't can't favor one over others, doesn't it?
Anyway, unless you are saying that the offended guy should not be able to sue, the actual point of whether the monument is allowable under the law or not seems to be moot based on the outcome of the Supreme courts decision in 2010 to allow the Mojave Desert Cross to remain on public land in CA.
-
I don't agree here. Settle the issue so as to have precedent for future similar issues is what I think.
And, actually, this has already been done it seems. (So let the offended guy sue because it looks like he's gonna lose and lose quickly.) From the link above:
In 2001, for example, the ACLU of Southern California sued for removal of the Mojave Desert Cross at Sunrise Rock, which stood on land that had become part of a national preserve run by the National Park Service. That long and tangled legal battle continues and is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Update, April 28, 2010: The high court later ruled against the ACLU in that case, allowing the cross to stand. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm.")
But isn't that a waste? Its already done. I fully agree in the future this shouldn't happen. But to waste time and money on things that were built long ago is asinine. We got bigger fish to fry.
-
But isn't that a waste? Its already done. I fully agree in the future this shouldn't happen. But to waste time and money on things that were built long ago is asinine. We got bigger fish to fry.
I'm not clear on who has bigger fish to fry. The judges who'll rule on the issue? The lawyers on the government's side?
That's all I can think of and maybe the gov't can sue the plaintiff for court and legal costs after he (almost surely) loses his case?
-
Not sure if you're doing it deliberately or not but you seem to be trying to reframe Necrosis' argument.
Didn't Necrosis write, "...the government doesn't get to pick and fucking choose what religious shit to endorse."?
That doesn't seem to mean "...cannot involve religion or religious symbols, etc." -- It would seem to mean the gov't can't favor one over others, doesn't it?
Anyway, unless you are saying that the offended guy should not be able to sue, the actual point of whether the monument is allowable under the law or not seems to be moot based on the outcome of the Supreme courts decision in 2010 to allow the Mojave Desert Cross to remain on public land in CA.
I'm not reframing anything. He doesn't believe government funds can be used for religious purposes in any way, or that religious symbols can be on public property. I explained to him why that is not correct.
I'm saying the "offended guy" is a paranoid anti-religious extremist who needs to stop wasting taxpayer money, man up, and stop crying about an 89-year-old WWI memorial.
-
I'm not reframing anything. He doesn't believe government funds can be used for religious purposes in any way, or that religious symbols can be on public property. I explained to him why that is not correct.
I'm saying the "offended guy" is a paranoid anti-religious extremist who needs to stop wasting taxpayer money, man up, and stop crying about an 89-year-old WWI memorial.
I only know what Necrosis believes based on what he's written but since you seem to have some superior method I guess I'll believe you, lol.
I hear what you're saying about "the offended guy"; You are giving your personal opinion and have made clear that the kind of stuff he whines about is not the same stuff that you whine about. Got it. (I'm just more interested in what the law says, not just the opinion of some old crotchety bum in Hawaii.)
-
I'm not clear on who has bigger fish to fry. The judges who'll rule on the issue? The lawyers on the government's side?
That's all I can think of and maybe the gov't can sue the plaintiff for court and legal costs after he (almost surely) loses his case?
How about leave it altogether. &guy fish to fry? poverty, injustice, education are all places money and time can be better spent on.
-
That would solve it. Until the guy bitches again....
Too true, but bitches gonna bitch, unfortunately. Some things will never change.
-
This is funny coming from the self-proclaimed troll. :) You don't understand how that whole church/state separation thing works. But you get somewhat of a pass, because you're Canadian.
In any event, it is extremely simplistic to say that public funds or public property cannot involve religion or religious symbols, etc. That's not the way our Constitution was written (see headhunter's post about that). The issue is of establishment of religion, not whether property or funds are in any way involved. Otherwise, we would not have a chaplain on the U.S. Senate payroll, giving prayers on the Senate floor. We wouldn't have government funded chaplains in the military. We would not have the religious symbols and words plastered all over public property, from courthouses, to money, to government buildings, etc.
But it's good that you are least smart enough to see how ridiculous this cross thing is.
You are wrong, you are again, not comparing apples to apples, now you are talking about paid positions in government etc. Public property to be utilized by the public, for public (shared) means, need be free of religious symbols as it is cause for things like this. Public land must cater to the public, ie taxpayers, not the majority.
Thanks for the pass but you are wrong.
-
Arlington National Cemetery is Federal land...there are plenty of religious symbols there. You fucking libs need to be beaten with a baseball bat. Go find another cause that helps people. You people are all full of shit.
-
I'm not reframing anything. He doesn't believe government funds can be used for religious purposes in any way, or that religious symbols can be on public property. I explained to him why that is not correct.
I'm saying the "offended guy" is a paranoid anti-religious extremist who needs to stop wasting taxpayer money, man up, and stop crying about an 89-year-old WWI memorial.
I did not say they cannot be used, they shouldn't be used for this. Is does nothing but cause issues like this for people to bitch about.
Oh you reframed it and defeated it soundly, you are the strawman winner.
-
Arlington National Cemetery is Federal land...there are plenty of religious symbols there. You fucking libs need to be beaten with a baseball bat. Go find another cause that helps people. You people are all full of shit.
I haven't died before, who pays for the headstone, plot etc? if the people do then they can put a nazi symbol in pink for all I care.
-
You are wrong, you are again, not comparing apples to apples, now you are talking about paid positions in government etc. Public property to be utilized by the public, for public (shared) means, need be free of religious symbols as it is cause for things like this. Public land must cater to the public, ie taxpayers, not the majority.
Thanks for the pass but you are wrong.
The U.S. Senate is a public place. Courthouses are public places. They both have religious symbols. No, the public square does not have be cleansed of religious symbols.
-
The U.S. Senate is a public place. Courthouses are public places. They both have religious symbols. No, the public square does not have be cleansed of religious symbols.
Yes I have acknowledged that, clearly you are too dim to get my point.
I give up. you win dude, I see your logic, it happens therefore it's fine or has to be in line with the constitution right? I mean they wouldn't do hypocritical things that are objective right?
-
Yes I have acknowledged that, clearly you are too dim to get my point.
I give up. you win dude, I see your logic, it happens therefore it's fine or has to be in line with the constitution right? I mean they wouldn't do hypocritical things that are objective right?
It's not that it happens, it's that it happens and the U.S. Supreme Court said it's ok that it happens.
It's pretty clear you don't know much about how our Constitution works. But like I said, foreigners get a little pass. Keep hanging out here and reading comments from people like headhunter and you'll get better understanding of how things work in this great country. :)
-
It's not that it happens, it's that it happens and the U.S. Supreme Court said it's ok that it happens.
It's pretty clear you don't know much about how our Constitution works. But like I said, foreigners get a little pass. Keep hanging out here and reading comments from people like headhunter and you'll get better understanding of how things work in this great country. :)
Ok so what do you think the outcome of this suit would be, the law is on my side hence the suit. They said it's ok did they, that public property can be used for religious purposes?