Humanist group sues to remove cross-shaped WWI memorial in Maryland

[Necrosis]

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.

[headhuntersix]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.? 

[OzmO]

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?

[Necrosis]

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.

[OzmO]

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

[Necrosis]

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.

[RRKore]

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.

[headhuntersix]

That would solve it. Until the guy bitches again....

[OzmO]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[OzmO]

I was more so using your post to get on my soapbox and be pedantic.

ok 

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[RRKore]

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/

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.")

[RRKore]

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. 

[OzmO]

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.

[RRKore]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[RRKore]

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.)

[OzmO]

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.

[RRKore]

That would solve it. Until the guy bitches again....

Too true, but bitches gonna bitch, unfortunately.   Some things will never change.

[Necrosis]

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.

[headhuntersix]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.