ACLU fights a little cross in the desert

"But, of course, there's no stopping the ACLU. They will not rest until the offensive little cross is removed from the private land on which it sits."

But it WASN'T private land until the government engaged in a fraudulent land transfer after losing the case in court. The purpose was to protect the exclusively sectarian nature of the cross - No symbols of ANY OTHER religion were allowed to be posted, only the Christian cross. This is a violation of Lemon in that it is NOT a secular purpose. It DOES have a primary effect of advancing ONE religion, and inhibiting all others, and fosters an excessive entanglement by fraudulently transferring the land to avoid compliance with a legitimate court ruling.

Those who refuse to se that are blinded by their ongoing quest to subjugate America TO religion instead of defending our constitutional right to the "free exercise thereof." The free exercise of other religions was denied by the government's refusal to allow any other religious symbols.

So quit lying for Jesus already.

aveteran wrote:

"But, of course, there's no stopping the ACLU. They will not rest until the offensive little cross is removed from the private land on which it sits."
But it WASN'T private land until the government engaged in a fraudulent land transfer after losing the case in court. The purpose was to protect the exclusively sectarian nature of the cross - No symbols of ANY OTHER religion were allowed to be posted, only the Christian cross. This is a violation of Lemon in that it is NOT a secular purpose. It DOES have a primary effect of advancing ONE religion, and inhibiting all others, and fosters an excessive entanglement by fraudulently transferring the land to avoid compliance with a legitimate court ruling.
Those who refuse to se that are blinded by their ongoing quest to subjugate America TO religion instead of defending our constitutional right to the "free exercise thereof." The free exercise of other religions was denied by the government's refusal to allow any other religious symbols.
So quit lying for Jesus already.

I wasn't aware that any other religions had asked to put a symbol there. Is that property still privately owned? Since I guess you are apposed to any crosses on public property, will the next step with the ACLU be sueing to have all the crosses removed from military cemetaries? Are you in favor of removing all the religious writings on all the government buildings in DC? That would really be a big job because there are religious writings on most of the public buildings, monuments, etc. How about our money?

aveteran accuses cross supporters of an "ongoing quest to subjugate America TO religion instead of defending our constitutional right to the "free exercise thereof."

That cross requires a pretty lengthy drive for anyone to get offended.

And even if it were government property - if a cross is offensive there, isn't it equally offensive on private property?

I don't think the mere presence of a cross or a star of David or any other symbol anywhere subjugates anyone to anything and does in fact reflect the "free exercise" of religion.

What's next?

You know, those grave markers at the cemetery need to go too. After all - the occupants are dead and aren't expressing anything of their own will. It's mere religious propaganda on the part of their living family members in an attempt to subjugate people like aveteran to religious indoctrination.

And let's strike the images that exist in our schools' textbooks from their pages too. You know - those pages that explain the origins and beliefs of world religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. In fact, let's just ban those pages altogether. Those crazy educators think they're educating kids, but we all know they're just subjugating aveteran's kids to religion.

I believe we're guaranteed freedom OF religion - not freedom FROM exposure to the religious beliefs of others.

I'm an atheist, by the way, one who respects the rights of others to believe as they do and to share their symbols as they see fit, just as I respect atheists who wish to display their symbols.

Scholar wrote:

aveteran accuses cross supporters of an "ongoing quest to subjugate America TO religion instead of defending our constitutional right to the "free exercise thereof."
That cross requires a pretty lengthy drive for anyone to get offended.
And even if it were government property - if a cross is offensive there, isn't it equally offensive on private property?
I don't think the mere presence of a cross or a star of David or any other symbol anywhere subjugates anyone to anything and does in fact reflect the "free exercise" of religion.
What's next?

This is really quite stupid, Scholar, even by you standards of illogic. The question is about displaying religious symbols on public land. The day I see right wingers like yourself supporting public displays of atheism on the steps of the Supreme Court, or in the statuary in the halls of public buildings then we can talk about whether or not it's appropriate or consistent with our Constitution to have affirmations of faith in publicly funded places paid for and maintained by people who may not share those faiths.
This is pretty clear-cut stuff.
You know, those grave markers at the cemetery need to go too. After all - the occupants are dead and aren't expressing anything of their own will. It's mere religious propaganda on the part of their living family members in an attempt to subjugate people like aveteran to religious indoctrination.
And let's strike the images that exist in our schools' textbooks from their pages too. You know - those pages that explain the origins and beliefs of world religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. In fact, let's just ban those pages altogether. Those crazy educators think they're educating kids, but we all know they're just subjugating aveteran's kids to religion.
I believe we're guaranteed freedom OF religion - not freedom FROM exposure to the religious beliefs of others.
I'm an atheist, by the way, one who respects the rights of others to believe as they do and to share their symbols as they see fit, just as I respect atheists who wish to display their symbols.

This is really quite stupid, Scholar, even by you standards of illogic. You ask if a symbol isn't just as offensive on private property as on public land, thereby missing the point entirely. It's not the symboly that is offensive; it's the fact that it's on public land, which by definition means land owned by Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, and Buddhists. Erecting symbols of faith on public land is a promotion of a religious point of view, a particular one. That's what the Constitution and the founders were anxious to avoid, the establishment of a state religion. The question is about displaying religious symbols on public land. The day I see right wingers like yourself supporting public displays of atheism on the steps of the Supreme Court, or in the statuary in the halls of public buildings then we can talk about whether or not it's appropriate or consistent with our Constitution to have affirmations of faith in publicly funded places paid for and maintained by people who may not share those faiths.
And Russ Neal does an ongoing disservice to the good work done by the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that has done more to protect the constitutional rights of the full range of Americans--from churches to the KKK to the American Communist Party--than a million misinformed columnists will ever do.

So like what rational person really cares?

I drive by an impromptu cross by the side of a public road every time I go into town, placed by family members of person killed in an automobile accident. There's zillions of similar markers around this state placed on public right-of-ways for similar reasons. It doesn't bother me a bit.

So what's the problem?

jaime wrote:

<quoted text>
This is really quite stupid, Scholar, even by you standards of illogic. You ask if a symbol isn't just as offensive on private property as on public land, thereby missing the point entirely. It's not the symboly that is offensive; it's the fact that it's on public land, which by definition means land owned by Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, and Buddhists. Erecting symbols of faith on public land is a promotion of a religious point of view, a particular one. That's what the Constitution and the founders were anxious to avoid, the establishment of a state religion. The question is about displaying religious symbols on public land. The day I see right wingers like yourself supporting public displays of atheism on the steps of the Supreme Court, or in the statuary in the halls of public buildings then we can talk about whether or not it's appropriate or consistent with our Constitution to have affirmations of faith in publicly funded places paid for and maintained by people who may not share those faiths.
And Russ Neal does an ongoing disservice to the good work done by the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization that has done more to protect the constitutional rights of the full range of Americans--from churches to the KKK to the American Communist Party--than a million misinformed columnists will ever do.

You didn't address the Military cemetery situation; do you want all the crosses taken off the graves of our soldiers; the very people who fought and died so you and the ACLU can disband traditional symbols of our country. You and the ACLU have one whale of a job to get rid of all the traditional symbols that happen to have a religious connotation. BTW, it's intersting the ACLU also defends MAMBLA; THE MAN AND BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION. Nice going you guys.

The Anit-Christian Lunatics Union (ACLU)

"This is really quite stupid, Scholar, even by you standards of illogic. You ask if a symbol isn't just as offensive on private property as on public land, thereby missing the point entirely. It's not the symboly that is offensive; it's the fact that it's on public land, which by definition means land owned by Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Hindus, and Buddhists. Erecting symbols of faith on public land is a promotion of a religious point of view, a particular one. That's what the Constitution and the founders were anxious to avoid, the establishment of a state religion."

It is pure idiocy to refer to the presence of a religious symbol on public land as "the establishment of a state religion". Where's the congregation, the board of directors? Where's the government document pronouncing this state religion? And where's the government bureaucrat that defends this new state religion by banning symbols of other faiths who might wish to erect similar monuments - or better yet, banning infidels from the property, or passing the collection plate?

And how exactly does said symbol "promote" a certain religion? I mean honestly, I can't believe I'm even discussing this stupidity here. You can drive down any road in town and find a cross with little plastic flowers on the public roadside - visible to everyone, oh, the horror!- where someone's loved one lost his overly inebriated life by smacking into a tree, or where some old woman's feline was sent to the hereafter by a lone Michelin.

Why not get some hemorrhoids over those crosses, if crosses "promote" Christianity by their very nature?

Or what about those cars with the "in memorium" tributes to their lost loved ones - with WHITE CROSSES next to the white lettering. They're ALL OVER THE PUBLIC ROADWAYS, PROMOTING CHRISTIANITY!!!

I suggest you consider your own nonsense more thoughtfully before calling others stupid and illogical. Wait - I forgot - you're Jaime, and you've got some special license for that sort of abuse, right?

Scholar wrote, nonsensically: "And how exactly does said symbol "promote" a certain religion? I mean honestly, I can't believe I'm even discussing this stupidity here. You can drive down any road in town and find a cross with little plastic flowers on the public roadside - visible to everyone, oh, the horror!- where someone's loved one lost his overly inebriated life by smacking into a tree, or where some old woman's feline was sent to the hereafter by a lone Michelin."

It's pretty simple, Scholar, even simple enough for you to understand. People putting crosses by the side of the road are private expressions of grief and faith, and I can't imagine anyone taking exception to such expressions, but the erection of private religious symbols on public property constitute another matter entirely. As is so often the case with you, Scholar, you just demonstrate an irrational inability to make important distinctions. They're not even subtle distinctions.

We are all still waiting, Jsime.

P.S. it's 6:02 pm., got Hannity on, just heard a tape with Obama screaming, in true "preacher mode"
about how he is going to get health care, no matter what anyone says. Obama must be even embarrasing you, Jaime. Let's all sing,"wishinng can make it so,just keep on wishing, bla, bla, bla, bla"
Someone should tell Obama that the electorate is catching on to him.

The Realist wrote:

We are all still waiting, Jsime.
P.S. it's 6:02 pm., got Hannity on, just heard a tape with Obama screaming, in true "preacher mode"
about how he is going to get health care, no matter what anyone says. Obama must be even embarrasing you, Jaime. Let's all sing,"wishinng can make it so,just keep on wishing, bla, bla, bla, bla"
Someone should tell Obama that the electorate is catching on to him.

Yep, Realist, guys like you are onto Obama. He wants health care reform, and sharp-eyed watchdogs like you would surely never let a thing like that get by you, especially not if someone like Obama was promoting it in "preacher mode," and guys like Hannity were brainwashing you into thinking that reform of a bad system would be a very bad thing, and that we might be doomed to suffer the horrible kinds of health care systems like those in places like France where, horror of horrors, everyone is insured, the health care is better, the costs are about a third less than we pay, and the outcomes make for healthier populations, a more competitive marketplace for businesses. Thank god people like you and Hannity are willing to stand up for insurance company profits, CEO bonuses, and bumping insured people off coverage when they get sick. Guys like you know what's right, and what's best for all, and that's for sure. How do you know? Hannity told you. Or Beck told you. So it must be true. Why would guys like that lie to you?

I think people need to get over the small stuff and concentrate on bigger issues. I am sure at the time, Christianity was the dominate religion when the cross was erected, before seperation between religion and government (or whatever the issue is). Maybe we need a timetable and grandfather things for the times they were done. Let's focus on getting our children out of Iraq and Afganistan. My son is heading there soon and God be with him. Those people who don't believe, I have always wondered what would go through there minds when guns and bombs are going off around them. Any old time war veterans that are ACLU members care to comment?

Chick With Hips wrote:

I think people need to get over the small stuff and concentrate on bigger issues. I am sure at the time, Christianity was the dominate religion when the cross was erected, before seperation between religion and government (or whatever the issue is). Maybe we need a timetable and grandfather things for the times they were done. Let's focus on getting our children out of Iraq and Afganistan. My son is heading there soon and God be with him. Those people who don't believe, I have always wondered what would go through there minds when guns and bombs are going off around them. Any old time war veterans that are ACLU members care to comment?

You should ask Jeremy Hall, who saw combat in Iraq. When his atheism became public knowledge, his fellow soldiers became a bigger threat to him than enemy fire or IEDs.

Scholar wrote:

It is pure idiocy to refer to the presence of a religious symbol on public land as "the establishment of a state religion".

When all other religious symbols are refused, your idiotic argument fails.

Scholar wrote:

And where's the government bureaucrat that defends this new state religion by banning symbols of other faiths who might wish to erect similar monuments - or better yet, banning infidels from the property, or passing the collection plate?

Don't know, but other faiths WERE denied their requests to erect their monuments.

Scholar wrote:

And how exactly does said symbol "promote" a certain religion?

It is a CHRISTIAN CROSS on public property where other faiths are prohibited from erecting symbols of their faith. That's how.

Scholar wrote:

aveteran accuses cross supporters of an "ongoing quest to subjugate America TO religion instead of defending our constitutional right to the "free exercise thereof."
That cross requires a pretty lengthy drive for anyone to get offended.

"IT IS PROPER TO TAKE ALARM AT THE FIRST EXPERIMENT ON OUR LIBERTIES"
James Madison, 1785

Scholar wrote:

And even if it were government property - if a cross is offensive there, isn't it equally offensive on private property?

Even I know the difference between public property and private property.

The Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
Since I guess you are apposed to any crosses on public property, will the next step with the ACLU be sueing to have all the crosses removed from military cemetaries?

Yours is the most common stupid remark. Military headstones bear the faith symbol (if requested) of the deceased servicemember. The symbol is about the size of one's palm, and not all of them are crosses. You are obviously envisioning the rows of white crosses in photos of cemetaries in Europe. We don't have that here.

The Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
You didn't address the Military cemetery situation; do you want all the crosses taken off the graves of our soldiers; the very people who fought and died so you and the ACLU can disband traditional symbols of our country. You and the ACLU have one whale of a job to get rid of all the traditional symbols that happen to have a religious connotation. BTW, it's intersting the ACLU also defends MAMBLA; THE MAN AND BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION. Nice going you guys.

And Pat Robertson supports murderous African dictators in return for his stake in a diamond mine. What's your point?

jaime wrote:

It's pretty simple, Scholar, even simple enough for you to understand. People putting crosses by the side of the road are private expressions of grief and faith, and I can't imagine anyone taking exception to such expressions, but the erection of private religious symbols on public property constitute another matter entirely.

I couldn't disagree more.

It's very clear based on every that our government is generally religion-neutral, and everyone knows this. The presence of a "religious" symbol (and apparently you've missed the distinction I was drawing between a symbol's traditional meaning and its more folksy use by real people) on government property, no matter what religion it might be thought to represent, cannot reasonably be interpreted as "endorsement" or "promotion" of a religion.

You ACLU busy-bodies ought to take a lesson from Europe. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of crosses and other religious symbols in public parks all across Europe. Europeans are bright enough to understand that this isn't a matter of government endorsement; it merely reflects the historical reality that religion has played an enormous role in the lives of Europe's citizens for many generations. They're a less religious group now than they've ever been, of course. But they're not busying themselves in public courtrooms with dumb-arsed ACLU lawyers over such matters or tearing down these historically significant monuments just to prove they're religion-neutral; they prove this through their legal systems every day.

You see, we do the same thing every day with our legal system. There's no place on earth where people are more free to practice any religion as they please, where a country's core documents are clearer about religious freedom, where courts again and again have stood up for religious liberties. You'd have to be a complete idiot to think that this country was trampling your religious rights just because a cross or whatever graces a public building, a symbol that is probably there for one or more secondary, non-religious reasons in the first place.

My point is that if government is going to bow to any moron who claims offense and injury because he sees a cross on government land, then we may indeed be at risk of losing our freedom of religious expression. If you can sue a government that clearly has no intent to do harm over something like this, then why shouldn't you be able to sue individuals for doing the same thing? A cross that is hate speech on government property is no less hateful on private property, right?

It's a very stupid slippery slope to head down.

If you are REALLY concerned about combatting government promotion of specific religions, you'd be wise to look into the recent trend at public universities to provide special rooms and accommodations for religious use on campus, allocating funds and issuing clear and blatant preference to certain religions while excluding others. Some are reconstructing buildings for the purpose of foot-washing rituals, others providing chapels and mosques. Ridiculous.

aveteran wrote:

<quoted text>
And Pat Robertson supports murderous African dictators in return for his stake in a diamond mine. What's your point?

Just what does Pat Robertson have to do with the discussion of the
ACLU?? If you want to talk about Pat Robertson you should start your own forum!

Jesse Jackson supported a leader in Africa who committed genocide on other tribes and other horrendouse acts of cruetly in Africa even on entire families.