If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KATC.com)   ACLU fights against Katrina memorial, which includes a cross on private land built by private donors. Yeah, I sure see the civil liberties violation   (katc.com) divider line 160
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

969 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Aug 2006 at 2:39 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-08 09:23:30 AM  
In a letter to the parish, Louisiana ACLU Executive Director Joe Cook said the plan violates the constitutional standards of church-state separation because the memorial would be located on a public waterway.

Let me redo that headline for you, submitter:

ACLU fights against Katrina memorial, which includes a cross on private land built by private donors. Yeah, I sure see the civil liberties violation I'm farking retarded
 
2006-08-08 09:25:24 AM  
UN objects via a strongly-worded letter: the UN isn't doing anything
ACLU objects via a strongly-worded letter: the ACLU is fighting
 
2006-08-08 09:26:55 AM  
To be fair...it explains that the memorial will be on private land...right next to the waterway.
 
2006-08-08 09:27:55 AM  
sigdiamond2000: because the memorial would be located on a public waterway.

From TFA, it would be on private land. I've seen lots of crosses on private lands overlooking an interstate.
 
2006-08-08 09:31:26 AM  
Is it just me, or does this strike of idolatry?
 
2006-08-08 09:32:17 AM  
sigdiamond2000: Let me redo that headline for you, submitter:

"...will be put on private land"


If it's put IN the water, you might have an argument...
 
2006-08-08 09:33:27 AM  
On another note: A cross with Jesus' head on it? Taaaaacky.
 
2006-08-08 09:33:39 AM  
sigdiamond2000

Did you RTFA before calling someone retarded?

ACLU objects via a strongly-worded letter: the ACLU is fighting

The ACLU can't file a preemptive lawsuit. When the cross is up, so will the suit be. In another FA, they already pointed out that they would sue.

My house is next to a public road. Can I not put up tacky signs?

I'm usually all for the ACLU's stances because they are pretty consistent. But this one goes against all logic. Will the sign be stupid? Sure. But so what. Yet another news report mentioned that some of the donations came from LSU employees, which the ACLU claims blurs the "government" line.

But the best part of this thread is my laughter at sigdiamond2000's post. Wow!
 
2006-08-08 09:33:59 AM  
Last One Left
But the UN sending a strongly worded letter regarding an issue like, for example, genocide in Darfur is different from the ACLU sending a strongly worded letter regarding a memorial.

I don't know where I'm taking that. But your comparison seems a little off.
 
2006-08-08 09:37:01 AM  
Is it just me, or does this strike of idolatry?

::YAWN::
 
2006-08-08 09:38:31 AM  
American
Clueless
Liberal
Union
 
2006-08-08 09:38:32 AM  
Maybe they can sit and wait until Jesus walks across the waterway toward the cross and they can bust HIM for the violation. Boo-yah, son of man!
 
2006-08-08 09:38:44 AM  
Yes, I am sure every single one of those who died is a Xtian.

If I had been one of the dead, you could hook a couple of poles and wires to my grave and use my spinning to power the pasrish.
 
2006-08-08 09:40:28 AM  
American
Clueless
Liberal
Union


Yeah, those silly liberals who fight for the KKK's right to assemble or street preachers' rights to preach. Or a kid's right to wear a Jesus shirt to school. STFU.

Yes, I am sure every single one of those who died is a Xtian.

What the fark does that have to do with anything? It is a private memorial. They are choosing to put up a cross. Go put up your own tackmorial.
 
2006-08-08 09:41:32 AM  
Admittedly, every single one of the dead may be catholic; it being 'da parish' and all that.

But its possible there is a dead jew or buddhist being 'honored' with this, um, touching tribute.
 
2006-08-08 09:42:14 AM  
SpeedyTurkey: But the UN sending a strongly worded letter regarding an issue like, for example, genocide in Darfur is different from the ACLU sending a strongly worded letter regarding a memorial.

By no means am I trying to equate genocide with erecting a memorial. My point was with the idea that the ACLU is fighting this (at this point). All they did was write a letter.
 
2006-08-08 09:44:03 AM  
Toneskin:

RTFA.

The Parish Council voted several months ago to erect a monument, but at the time did not offer specific plans. The parish recently announced plans to dedicate the memorial on Aug. 29, the one-year anniversary of hurricane.

I understand you may not be from here so let me ejumacate you: a parish is our equivalent of a county. This is a PUBLIC monument.
 
2006-08-08 09:45:32 AM  
This just seems like a stupid waste of time. I'm glad my local chapter doesn't go this overboard.
 
2006-08-08 09:47:59 AM  
gilgigamesh But its possible there is a dead jew or buddhist being 'honored' with this, um, touching tribute.

If they are dead why would they care?

I have a Jewish surname. If I was accidentally memorialized as being Jewish after a tragedy, I am pretty sure I would not care too much about it. Being dead and all.

If Christians have to put up with the piss cross the least you could give us is this memorial.
 
2006-08-08 09:48:11 AM  
gilgamesh

Now, you RTFA in context.

1) Don't make stupid assumptions. Just because a vote was made does NOT make it a public monument. Period.

2) I know what a Parish is. I lived in one the majority of my life.

3) The council made a vote. So what? PRIVATE PARTIES are funding it and putting it on PRIVATE land.

If the city council votes for a new church in my town and then I decide to build a new church (I hear it is a good money-maker), then does that mean the church is a PUBLIC church?

I can't believe anyone is even siding with the ACLU on this one. On what PRIVATE PARTIES choose to do. Tacky or not. Invisible man or not. I find it pretty scary if someone can say, "Well the government wanted this, so you can't use your private money and land the way you want."
 
2006-08-08 09:49:45 AM  
Cripes. I even RTFA and still didn't see that.

Over the years erosion has widened the outlet, so the bank on which the cross will be erected is on privately owned land, Rodriguez said.

My attempt at covering my ass will be to point out that it sounds like the bank of the waterway used to be public land before erosion.

Still a pretty weak justification for me calling the submitter a "farking retard". But, what the hell, I'm going to stand by it.
 
2006-08-08 09:49:57 AM  
It may seem trivial, Action Replay Nick, but remember the ACLU is all about the slippery slope. This is a clear violation of the church-state no-no line.

It is a publicly funded monument, built in a public area, that portrays a clear endorsement of a particular religious pov.
 
2006-08-08 09:52:48 AM  
tonesskin

I stand corrected. It is being paid for with donations.

Still, there is something we are missing. Why does the parish even require a vote on this? They obviously approved something.
 
2006-08-08 09:53:51 AM  
Crosses are to the left what gay marriage is to the right. It is this kind of wedge issues that plays on people’s fear of the "slippery slope" and distracts us from getting any real work done in our government.
 
2006-08-08 09:54:30 AM  
I wonder who owns the land.

Something ain't right.
 
2006-08-08 09:55:37 AM  
sigdiamond2000

My attempt at covering my ass will be to point out that it sounds like the bank of the waterway used to be public land before erosion.

So what? It's private land now.

gilgamesh

It is a publicly funded monument, built in a public area, that portrays a clear endorsement of a particular religious pov.

Besides the fact that it is PRIVATELY funded (by donations, not taxes) and is being built on PRIVATE land, you are entirely right. And by right I mean wrong.

This is a clear violation of the church-state no-no line.

By your logic, building a church would violate that line. Or putting up a Flying Spaghetti Monster statue in my farkING FRONT YARD!
 
2006-08-08 09:56:17 AM  
gilgigamesh: They obviously approved something.

I'm thinking they had to approve some kind of zoning issue. If I want to build a restaurant in my neighborhood, I would have to get approval from the city. This is probably the same kind of thing.
 
2006-08-08 09:57:45 AM  
DaSwankOne

Assuming this is an entirely private memorial it is what it is, I guess.

But to answer your question: don't be silly.

You don't think the family of an orthodox Jew would be phased by a tax funded giant light-up cross... with a picture of Jesus on it, no less?
 
2006-08-08 09:57:51 AM  
Believe me, I'm a huge fan of the ACLU, but this is stupid. The whole argument on the ACLU's part basically amounts to "Waaaahhh! I don't want to look at crosses!!"
 
2006-08-08 09:58:35 AM  
Why does the parish even require a vote on this?

I think that either:

1) The parish vote had nothing to do with this cross and was just mentioned by the ACLU.

OR

2) The parish realized they would be challenged so they got a private party to take care of it. Which is what they should do. This is the ultimate in keeping the government out of the religious issue--don't let the government do it, find a private party to do so.

This, to someone like me who believes in separation of church and state, is what I want to see!

And more importantly, with criminal law aside, don't tell me what I can or can't do with my own money on my own land.
 
2006-08-08 09:59:43 AM  
You don't think the family of an orthodox Jew would be phased by a tax funded giant light-up cross... with a picture of Jesus on it, no less?

Maybe. So what? They can make their own memorial.
 
2006-08-08 09:59:45 AM  
tonesskin

I corrected myself after I saw your post, but before I posted that.

And that's not my name. cntrl-C is your friend.

Yes I am being petty so farking sue me.
 
2006-08-08 09:59:56 AM  
On another note: A cross with Jesus' head on it? Taaaaacky.

Seriously, who thought that was a good idea? The thing lights up too!
 
2006-08-08 10:00:34 AM  
tonesskin

So what? It's private land now.

Hey, I didn't say my justification was justifiable. My fight or flight response is kicking in.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure this will get greelit, making me look like a complete fool.
 
2006-08-08 10:00:59 AM  
And that's not my name. cntrl-C is your friend.

Wasn't too worried about it. Sorry.
 
2006-08-08 10:01:42 AM  
It sounds like they did everything they could within the bounds of the law to skirt the wrath of the ACLU... going right up to the line, literally.
 
2006-08-08 10:01:57 AM  
My fight or flight response is kicking in.

That's hot.

Forgiven.
 
2006-08-08 10:03:24 AM  
sigdiamond2000

Don't worry about it, brother. I got pwn3d too.

Admittedly I am so used to see misleading crap about the ACLU in here I didn't read carefully before getting called on it.
 
2006-08-08 10:03:42 AM  
It sounds like they did everything they could within the bounds of the law to skirt the wrath of the ACLU... going right up to the line, literally.

I think this is a good thing, though. While I still think that the ACLU may be putting two unrelated events together, what happened should be the goal of the ACLU. It removed the government say-so in where the cross is placed, and keeps taxpayers from funding it. So I think that is a good thing...or as good as a lit up cross is going to be.
 
2006-08-08 10:04:32 AM  
Admittedly I am so used to see misleading crap about the ACLU in here I didn't read carefully before getting called on it.

I'm usually a big fan of the ACLU as well. But this time, not so much.
 
2006-08-08 10:04:50 AM  
tonesskin


You don't think the family of an orthodox Jew would be phased by a tax funded giant light-up cross... with a picture of Jesus on it, no less?

Maybe. So what? They can make their own memorial.


Calm the frig down, Meg.

I had already acknowledged your point. I was just answering his question.
 
2006-08-08 10:07:07 AM  
Calm the frig down, Meg.

Calm as can be. I was just answering your question. :)
 
2006-08-08 10:10:57 AM  
Are they still accepting donations ? I wouldn't mind helping out if they can get a motor to spin the thing or sound system to play La Cucaracha. May as well make it as classy as possible.
 
2006-08-08 10:11:13 AM  
gilgigamesh

Admittedly I am so used to see misleading crap about the ACLU in here I didn't read carefully before getting called on it.

That's exactly what I did.

www.slap-shot.com

"I feel shame."
 
2006-08-08 10:17:34 AM  
Mordant

You know... you could earmark a donation for that purpose.

If you do, I want in.

Gmail in profile.
 
2006-08-08 11:06:55 AM  
Seeing how most oversized crosses in Louisianna are designed to burn....
 
2006-08-08 11:06:56 AM  
Never one to back down, Parish President Henry "Junior" Rodriguez has a simple reply: "They can kiss my ass."

Returning Rodriguez's volley, Cook added, "It would be better if he would kiss the Constitution and honor it and honor the First Amendment."


http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-16/1154844074102520.xm l&coll=1


Anyway, I don't know much about what constitutes a "waterway" but at this point, I agree that it sounds like an overreaction.
 
2006-08-08 11:19:48 AM  
Ok. I'm obviously missing something here, which may be due to me living in NJ where virtually all waterfront property is in private hands.

How is this different then a person erecting an enormous cross (or whatever) on his own property, and paid with his own money, on land that just happens to be adjacent to I-95, a public roadway, or the Hudson River, a public waterway? If it's due to erosion of the former public land that may have adjacent to the private land, tough.

/There's got to be more to this story.
 
2006-08-08 11:22:04 AM  
How is this different then a person erecting an enormous cross (or whatever) on his own property, and paid with his own money, on land that just happens to be adjacent to I-95, a public roadway, or the Hudson River, a public waterway? If it's due to erosion of the former public land that may have adjacent to the private land, tough

I don't think it is, but a lot of sources are reporting different "issues" of the ACLU. As I mentioned, some are saying that because LSU employees are involved, the ACLU thinks it is a state issue.

But if it is placed on private land by private donations, then I don't know how the Constitution isn't being respected.
 
2006-08-08 12:11:30 PM  
tonesskin
As I mentioned, some are saying that because LSU employees are involved, the ACLU thinks it is a state issue.

Do you have links to that? I'd like to see the reasoning behind. Granted, I'm already predisposed to making mockery of it, but I'd still like to see it.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report