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.

(Washington Times)   ACLU has gotten its panties in a bind over a cross erected in 1934, in the desert, to honor WWI vets, who now are all dead   (washingtontimes.com) divider line 396
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

16395 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2009 at 10:33 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



396 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-27 12:01:16 AM
just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic: I will be the first to admit that his debating skills are lacking and I did not find his argument compelling, however...

You resorted to an ad hominem suggesting that he is a basement dwelling child who should therefore not be heard. Then you went on to say that he should let the adults have a civil conversation.

/The irony here is overwhelming

No, the implication is that he is a basement dwelling adult that is talking out of his ass. No irony, but dripping in sarcasm.

_______________

To quote your post back to you:

"Go back to your mother's basement and let the adults have a civil conversation about grownup topics."

Specifically telling him to allow the adults to have a civil conversation most certainly does imply that he is not an adult. It is however besides the point. You resorted to an ad hominem when you told him to allow the adults to have a civil conversation.

Civilized debate means addressing the argument put forth without attacking the debater, and this thread has been anything but civilized. Therefore, the irony (though obviously unintentional on your part) is there.


Ok, I'll bite: name three truly civil Fark threads (difficulty: No beer threads).

I wasn't attacking him, I was pointing out in a rather obvious, sarcastic manner his childishness. Using his own words/actions to point out his uncivil behavior is not an attack.
 
2009-05-27 12:02:20 AM
boobsrgood:

The fundies are so desperate to be right, they'll even wait until you're dead to get the last word in.

That's hilarious, considering that's what the ACLU is doing here.
 
2009-05-27 12:05:50 AM
Johnson: Would you look at how fast they put the names of all our guys who got killed?
The Sergeant: That's a World War One memorial.
Johnson: But the name's are the same.
The Sergeant: They always are.

math.stanford.edu

The Big Red One: The Reconstruction (new window)
 
2009-05-27 12:06:01 AM
odinsposse: relevent. Just because it's been there for a long time does not make it legal. This isn't a popularity contest. I know people keep saying this is about being offended but it's not. Anyone who sees the cross regularly could bring suit to determine if having that cross up is legal.

That may be wrong. I don't know a lot about easements work in government dedications of parks. This doesn't seem like a straight government taking so it may be possible that if some private group has maintained the cross or regularly used the area its on for the past 85 years, that group might have a claim for an easement. Not completely sure, but don't dismiss the time out of hand.
 
2009-05-27 12:07:46 AM
Malt Liquor: just2quixotic: That said, judging by the rage and threats of violence in this thread, I would suspect that any people who do object to religion being endorsed on government land are probably afraid to come forward. They are probably glad to let a diverse organization take the blame rather than having all this fury focused on themselves and their family.

I'm the only one raging so spare the drama.

It is painfully obvious that you didn't read the article because religion in not "being endorsed on government land". It would be an entirely different matter if this was something that was put there by a government agency, but this was a group of veterans.

You have absolutely no comprehension of what these guys were going through when they came back and what putting that cross up meant to them.

For me, this has absolutely ZERO to do with any perceived religious symbolism and EVERYTHING to do with preserving the memories of the men that put that cross there in 1934.


_________________


Couple of questions for you:

1. Is it on government land?
2. Is it a symbol of a major religion?
3. Is it on officially recognized monument voted on by members of Congress and therefore subject to the perception that it is an endorsement of a religion by thee government?

Yes, it is out in the middle of nowhere, and yea it was of comfort to many of the men that fought in WWI. But it is part of an endemic endorsement of Christianity by the U.S. Government.

There are cases where non-Christian immigrants have looked around at all the Christian symbols on government land and worried they were going to be persecuted for their faith.

For instance, a Muslim man who was wronged and wanted to file a law-suit against a Christian might give up and go home and accept the injustice after going to the court house and seeing ten commandments hanging up on the wall behind the judge.

So, you might not see it as an endorsement of religion, but others will, and government has no business doing that.

/for all that, I would be personally inclined to allow this monument to stand as historic. I can see the other side of the argument, can you?
 
2009-05-27 12:09:08 AM
All right! I'm going to the Courthouse tommorrow and demand all these totem poles we have in the Northwest, on public lands, be removed. (Reservations are Federal land right?)
 
2009-05-27 12:09:11 AM
kerpal32: And even then only 2 people have filed any legal grievances. One is a retired park ranger turned professional activist now living in Oregon, and the other one seems to be have a screw loose.

Sure, attack the victims.

kerpal32: Should the WWI memorial in Arlington be torn down?

That should be next. It takes time to find these things.

Mister Peejay: Remove all Republicans: I am offended. Why should there be government land with crosses on it?

Why shouldn't there?


The government represents EVERYBODY, not the tyranny of the majority of Christians who like putting crosses and 10 Commandants and pictures of a man suffering and dying everywhere. Why not take audio from the Passion of the Christ suffering and blast it everywhere as a reminder of your sins? Why not have have the Bible read aloud from all radios and televisions all day and all night?

Matt Jones Dashboard: Can the plaque still mention that it is dedicated to war veterans, or will that offend the religious rights of American Quakers?

Was it dedicated to war veterans? If not, just say "a bunch of people died here in 1934" and move on. It's been 70 years!!! The world has changed a bit.

heinekenftw: The Taliban also liked taking down religious monuments.

Yes, because one cross standing a mountain is the small as a ten-thousand-year-old Buddhist statute. Besides, I don't think the ACLU would be supportive of the Taliban. That's more your side. Find me a 70-year-old and Sarah Palin and her cronies would be there in a day demanding it be destroyed for a shrine to Joe the Plumber.

odinsposse: Historical monuments have special protection. If the state decides to give that protection to this cross that's fine.

It's unconstitutional. States and even Congress cannot violate the Bill of Rights. If it's a historical monument with a cross, that cross needs to go. Give it to some religious nut to wear next to his wooden piece of the original cross or whatever snake oil they're buying these days.
 
2009-05-27 12:09:32 AM
Xerxes99: Bet you want to remove these religious symbols off of federal land too huh?!

Why? They represent individuals, not to mention that...

farm4.static.flickr.com

...they're not all crosses.

/link hot like religious fervor
 
2009-05-27 12:09:40 AM
odinsposse: Irrelevent. Just because it's been there for a long time does not make it legal. This isn't a popularity contest. I know people keep saying this is about being offended but it's not. Anyone who sees the cross regularly could bring suit to determine if having that cross up is legal.

No, it says this is simply a political and populist atheist issue to a handful of professional activists trying to stamp out references to religion.

Find another place to fight these kinds of battles, not a veterans memorial.

Rather than destroy our memorials like this one, why not add representation to it. Because that isn't the issue with this particular activist or his agenda.

What's next, you'll want to destroy any pictures, references to it, or history of it because it "offends" and "violates" your rights?

Or again, do you want to tear down the one at Arlington also?fark this clown, the ACLU on this matter and any farking retard supporting them on it. It's a memorial to lives lost by Veterans in WWI. And suck it up Shirley and get the sand out of your vagina because it is a cultural representation of the history of this country. Too farking bad. It wasn't put up to be offensive. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. Add to this one or build new monuments elsewhere.
 
2009-05-27 12:10:52 AM
ProdigalSigh: I tend to agree but I would argue from the historical landmark angle.

Definitely something to pursue.

That divided highway sign is pretty interesting, though - I guess they must make that up special when it wears out? Or maybe just use a little sticker...
 
2009-05-27 12:11:07 AM
The Angry Hand of God: Did you know they also make you swear upon a bible?

No, they don't make you. You can choose to use an alternate book, such as the Torah or koran. Or you can choose no book at all and affirm you will tell the truth, etc.
 
2009-05-27 12:12:21 AM
gave up: All right! I'm going to the Courthouse tommorrow and demand all these totem poles we have in the Northwest, on public lands, be removed. (Reservations are Federal land right?)

No, they are sovereign Indian land, and you're a jackass for interfering with the religious rights of the Native peoples. Isn't it enough that we've already taken and ruined their land, killed their people, and forced them onto "reservations"? You have to go and take down all their religious icons? For what, another mega-church to be built there so these people have the power:

cache.boston.com
 
2009-05-27 12:13:02 AM
DamnYankees: OgreMagi: The right to arms is a civil liberty.

According to who? That's just an opinion.


According to the Supreme Court in the recent Heller case that affirmed it as an individual right (not a collective right as believed by the ACLU). An individual right is a civil right.
 
2009-05-27 12:13:09 AM
pauly1620: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic:
_______________

Ok, I'll bite: name three truly civil Fark threads (difficulty: No beer threads).

______________


difficulty: No beer threads!

Oh come on, that is just not fair...
 
2009-05-27 12:14:08 AM
kerpal32: Find another place to fight these kinds of battles, not a veterans memorial.

Why? Do people visiting veterans memorials have no rights? Why not have a pastor there telling everyone the Jewish and Muslim veterans are going to hell? We are a Christian nation, right?
 
2009-05-27 12:14:46 AM
OgreMagi: According to the Supreme Court in the recent Heller case that affirmed it as an individual right (not a collective right as believed by the ACLU). An individual right is a civil right.

For the city of DC only. States still have the right to regulate themselves.
 
2009-05-27 12:15:03 AM
just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic:
_______________

Ok, I'll bite: name three truly civil Fark threads (difficulty: No beer threads).


______________


difficulty: No beer threads!

Oh come on, that is just not fair...


Any three asian boobie threads
 
2009-05-27 12:15:21 AM
Remove all Republicans: gave up: All right! I'm going to the Courthouse tommorrow and demand all these totem poles we have in the Northwest, on public lands, be removed. (Reservations are Federal land right?)

No, they are sovereign Indian land, and you're a jackass for interfering with the religious rights of the Native peoples. Isn't it enough that we've already taken and ruined their land, killed their people, and forced them onto "reservations"? You have to go and take down all their religious icons? For what, another mega-church to be built there so these people have the power:


Fine, we'll just take down the ones in the parks then....
 
2009-05-27 12:15:41 AM
And virtually any TMBG quote thread
 
2009-05-27 12:15:58 AM
heinekenftw: The Taliban also liked taking down religious monuments.

Is.... is Taliban the new Hitlar?

/because YOU KNOW WHO ELSE LIKED TAKING DOWN RELIGIOUS MONUMENTS??

//uh-huh... that's right.... NAPOLEON!
 
2009-05-27 12:18:53 AM
kerpal32: After we tear down all the monuments, do we need to destroy all pictures also?

Would someone seeing a picture in a book or on the internet violate their civil liberties?


There must be a word for destroying pictures, some kind of clasm that can be done to such Icons.
 
2009-05-27 12:19:36 AM
just2quixotic:

difficulty: No beer threads!

Oh come on, that is just not fair...


Illustrates my point.

/I never argue "fair"
//former CX
///was going to be a lawyer, then discovered I had a conscience.
 
2009-05-27 12:19:40 AM
Remove all Republicans: gave up: All right! I'm going to the Courthouse tommorrow and demand all these totem poles we have in the Northwest, on public lands, be removed. (Reservations are Federal land right?)

No, they are sovereign Indian land, and you're a jackass for interfering with the religious rights of the Native peoples. Isn't it enough that we've already taken and ruined their land, killed their people, and forced them onto "reservations"? You have to go and take down all their religious icons? For what, another mega-church to be built there so these people have the power:


Actually, the Native American burial mounds here in Ohio piss me off. Fort Ancient, a state park, features all kinds of burial mounds. That offends my sensibilities. I will not have the government endorse Native American rituals!!! Does anyone have the ACLU hotline?
 
2009-05-27 12:19:44 AM
odinsposse: kerpal32: odinsposse: Since when do things have to be offensive to be illegal? The government can't promote a particular religion. Even if people are okay with it that does not make it legal.

It's been there since 1934. No one raised any objections for 70 years. And even then only 2 people have filed any legal grievances. One is a retired park ranger turned professional activist now living in Oregon, and the other one seems to be have a screw loose.

Irrelevent. Just because it's been there for a long time does not make it legal. This isn't a popularity contest. I know people keep saying this is about being offended but it's not. Anyone who sees the cross regularly could bring suit to determine if having that cross up is legal.

Mr. Buono insists that his seeing the monument ("two to four times a year") violates his civil rights.

It does. The government can't promote a religion. Just because it doesn't bother you when the government does promote a religion does not make it any less of a violation.

Should the WWI memorial in Arlington be torn down?

Historical monuments have special protection. If the state decides to give that protection to this cross that's fine.

/yea, this is bullshiat.

I'm sorry you think keeping the government from overstepping its boundaries is bullshiat.


THIS.
 
2009-05-27 12:19:55 AM
As usual, the ACLU is right, everyone flipping their shiat don't understand the ACLU.

It is the ULTIMATE letter-of-the-law organization, and it focuses on protecting civil liberties. After all the Republican biatching about how judges should be impartial robots or sociopaths with no conception of human emotion, it's weird to see them so up in arms against the ACLU in a case like this.

This is exactly the kind of case where an empathetic judge would just rule to leave the cross alone, but one following the strict letter of the law would require other symbols.

/Thinks there should be other symbols, but admittedly I have an anti-religious bias
 
2009-05-27 12:20:00 AM
Fano: just2quixotic:
_______________

Ok, I'll bite: name three truly civil Fark threads (difficulty: No beer threads).


______________


difficulty: No beer threads!

Oh come on, that is just not fair...

Any three asian boobie threads


That actually did occur to me. (My wife is even Chinese - mmmmmmmm, Asian boobie.) But then I thought about whether or not the farkettes would consider those truly civilized threads.
 
2009-05-27 12:21:24 AM
kerpal32: What's next, you'll want to destroy any pictures, references to it, or history of it because it "offends" and "violates" your rights?

Next I'm going to erect a life size version of the Nativity Scene and call it a war monument. This is more about precedence than actually removing the monument.

itazurakko: That divided highway sign is pretty interesting, though - I guess they must make that up special when it wears out? Or maybe just use a little sticker...

I actually grew up a few miles from it, the sign is specially made and is the only one like it in the world (that is of course, except for the one on the other side for southbound traffic).
 
2009-05-27 12:22:34 AM
ghare: MOST Christian veterans would cry up a storm if the FSM was the symbol. You know this is the truth. Why must you lie?

[[citation needed]]
 
2009-05-27 12:24:10 AM
Fano: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic:
_______________

Ok, I'll bite: name three truly civil Fark threads (difficulty: No beer threads).


______________


difficulty: No beer threads!

Oh come on, that is just not fair...

Any three asian boobie threads


You found the loophole, nice. +1

/I forgot about Asian boobie threads
 
2009-05-27 12:24:44 AM
kerpal32: No, it says this is simply a political and populist atheist issue to a handful of professional activists trying to stamp out references to religion.

Find another place to fight these kinds of battles, not a veterans memorial.


It doesn't matter if it sucks. Being emotional does not change the law.

Rather than destroy our memorials like this one, why not add representation to it. Because that isn't the issue with this particular activist or his agenda.

That's also possible. It's not the plaintiff's job to determine how the violation is fixed. The state could add memorials if they wanted to.

What's next, you'll want to destroy any pictures, references to it, or history of it because it "offends" and "violates" your rights?

This is about the government. Once again this suit is not about being offended. This is about the government's illegal promotion of religion. Not yours. Not private organizations. Not history books. You can do anything you like. You can plaster your house in crosses, your car in Bible verses, and have a full body tattoo of Jesus inked over your skin. If someone tells you that offends them you can give them the finger. That's all well within your rights. The government can do no such thing. When it does it violates the rights of everyone, not just the people who don't like it.

Or again, do you want to tear down the one at Arlington also?

Again, I already pointed out that historical monuments are protected.

fark this clown, the ACLU on this matter and any farking retard supporting them on it. It's a memorial to lives lost by Veterans in WWI. And suck it up Shirley and get the sand out of your vagina because it is a cultural representation of the history of this country. Too farking bad. It wasn't put up to be offensive. It doesn't violate anyone's rights. Add to this one or build new monuments elsewhere.

You're clearly not able to deal with this without confusing your emotions with fact. You are going to have to suck it up and face the reality of the situation. That this has a connection with veterans may raise the emotional stakes but does not change the law. It may suck that a veterans memorial gets destroyed (although I think it's more likely it will be moved) but the rule of law applies to all. Even when that makes people emotional.
 
2009-05-27 12:25:35 AM
itazurakko: Xerxes99: Bet you want to remove these religious symbols off of federal land too huh?!

Why? They represent individuals, not to mention that...

...they're not all crosses.

/link hot like religious fervor


/so if I am reading you logic correctly.. you only hate Christians? You are no better than the Nazis as they shoved Jews into the oven....
 
2009-05-27 12:25:36 AM
pauly1620: Fano: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic:
_______________

Ok, I'll bite: name three truly civil Fark threads (difficulty: No beer threads).


______________


difficulty: No beer threads!

Oh come on, that is just not fair...

Any three asian boobie threads

You found the loophole, nice. +1

/I forgot about Asian boobie threads


Even the trolls like Asian boobie threads.
 
2009-05-27 12:30:43 AM
To me, the simple white crosses on memorials or graves are more a traditional symbol than a religious one.

Although if we want to go all the way back to it's roots, we should complain that we are honoring our dead with an implement of public execution and torture.

/Personally I want a holographic grave marker like in Serenity
//Especially if it was motion activated to scare all the kids.
 
2009-05-27 12:33:48 AM
Fano: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic:
_______________

Ok, I'll bite: name three truly civil Fark threads (difficulty: No beer threads).


______________


difficulty: No beer threads!

Oh come on, that is just not fair...

Any three asian boobie threads


any hot lesbian sex threads, or hot female teacher sex threads
 
2009-05-27 12:33:58 AM
Remove all Republicans: kerpal32: And even then only 2 people have filed any legal grievances. One is a retired park ranger turned professional activist now living in Oregon, and the other one seems to be have a screw loose.

Sure, attack the victims.

kerpal32: Should the WWI memorial in Arlington be torn down?

That should be next. It takes time to find these things.


This offends me because it symbolizes the sun God Ra.

I'm a victim. Tear it down.

orpheus.ucsd.edu

/bullshiat. If you can read and understood history, you'd note it is a monument. Same as the one in Mojave. Buono is not a victim here.

In 1934, a gritty prospector named J. Riley Bembry gathered a couple of his fellow World War I veterans at Sunrise Rock. Together they erected the cross, in honor of their fallen comrades. The memorial has been privately maintained ever since, with small groups still occasionally meeting to remember the nation's veterans.

A wrinkle developed in 1994, when the federal government declared the surrounding area a national preserve. With the cross now located on newly public land, the memorial soon caught the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union. Working with Frank Buono, a retired park ranger turned professional activist, the ACLU demanded that the National Park Service tear down the cross.


It wasn't originally erected on National Park land.
 
2009-05-27 12:34:13 AM
NullReferenceException: /Personally I want a holographic grave marker like in Serenity
//Especially if it was motion activated to scare all the kids.


Get off my grave!

/something like that??
 
2009-05-27 12:35:30 AM
odinsposse: This is about the government's illegal promotion of religion.

Bullshiat. See comments above.
 
2009-05-27 12:45:31 AM
kerpal32: This offends me because it symbolizes the sun God Ra.

I'm a victim. Tear it down.


Not a religious symbol. Look into the Washington Monument and you will see it wasn't constructed as a religious symbol. Do you think the ACLU is asking for everything cross-shaped to be taken down?

Even if it were it too would be a historical monument. If you're just going to keep pointing out historical landmarks maybe you should be lobbying for this cross to be one as well rather than asking that we overlook the law just this once.

It wasn't originally erected on National Park land.

Which may change things. However it is currently owned and maintained by the government and on government land. The case will still be about whether or not this is the government promoting religion. If it is, it's illegal.

I understand this offends your sensibilities but that doesn't mean you should ignore reason. The government can't promote a religion even if you really like that particular religion or that particular act of promotion.
 
2009-05-27 12:45:57 AM
kerpal32: It wasn't originally erected on National Park land.

It's there now. Tear it down. The government shouldn't have been allowed to keep it up when it first got it but what can you do?
 
2009-05-27 12:48:27 AM
Duke_leto_Atredes: Fano: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic: pauly1620: just2quixotic:
_______________

Ok, I'll bite: name three truly civil Fark threads (difficulty: No beer threads).


______________


difficulty: No beer threads!

Oh come on, that is just not fair...

Any three asian boobie threads

any hot lesbian sex threads, or hot female teacher sex threads


Redhead (authentic) Foobies threads

/I still read them, even if I can't join in on the conversation
//:-(
 
2009-05-27 12:49:03 AM
I still fail to understand how a device used to torture and kill people can be erected to honor soldiers?

Maybe soldiers who served at Abu Ghraib, but WWI soldiers? I can think of better ways to honor them...like, for example, reversing the Bush admin policies that rape and pillage veteran benefits...
 
2009-05-27 12:51:20 AM
people offend me. can i have them all removed from my lawn?

my lawn...

coastalmap.marine.usgs.gov

off!
 
2009-05-27 12:52:52 AM
Remove all Republicans: kerpal32: It wasn't originally erected on National Park land.

It's there now. Tear it down. The government shouldn't have been allowed to keep it up when it first got it but what can you do?



It's a MONUMENT. In honor of the dead from a war nearly a century ago erected by their comrades 60 years before the Government confiscated the land. Nothing else.

Buono and others are not the victims here. And everyone sees the truth about that and sees Buono and people like him for exactly what they are.

They are aggressors, oppressors and wannabe fascists. You just can't admit that.

Go tear down some Missions along PCH.

/you just don't see how batshiat crazy you are.
 
2009-05-27 12:53:03 AM
logistic: I still fail to understand how a device used to torture and kill people can be erected to honor soldiers?

Maybe soldiers who served at Abu Ghraib, but WWI soldiers? I can think of better ways to honor them...like, for example, reversing the Bush admin policies that rape and pillage veteran benefits...


0/10

You REALLY need a history lesson if you think it started with Dubya.
 
2009-05-27 12:54:46 AM
odinsposse: Not a religious symbol. Look into the Washington Monument and you will see it wasn't constructed as a religious symbol. Do you think the ACLU is asking for everything cross-shaped to be taken down?

Look up history and you'll see it was to be a 'temple', an American pantheon.
 
2009-05-27 12:55:50 AM
Umm....I want these guys to be offended by the American Red Cross when there house is one fire, flood, tornato, et

How offended will they be at a cross then?

/vet
//Now Buddhist
///married to Athiest vet
////Daughter of retired Wiccan Vet
////Grand Daughter of Agnoistic Vet.
 
2009-05-27 12:57:37 AM
kerpal32: odinsposse: Not a religious symbol. Look into the Washington Monument and you will see it wasn't constructed as a religious symbol. Do you think the ACLU is asking for everything cross-shaped to be taken down?

Look up history and you'll see it was to be a 'temple', an American pantheon.


and we'd better cancel that "American Idol" show....
 
2009-05-27 12:58:11 AM
Fine then.
For the Jews we'll put up a Star of David.
The Buddhist get a Buddha
The aithest get nothing, because they balive in nothing.
And the Muslems get an Exploding Car.
 
2009-05-27 12:58:21 AM
kerpal32
Look up history and you'll see it was to be a 'temple', an American pantheon.

Which religion is that, exactly?

words. they mean things.
 
2009-05-27 12:59:55 AM
RanDomino: kerpal32
Look up history and you'll see it was to be a 'temple', an American pantheon.

Which religion is that, exactly?

words. they mean things.


yea, like MONUMENT TO WWI VETERANS, regardless of shape or appearance.
 
Displayed 50 of 396 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report