| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
15 Nov 2005 07:12:45 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
By: North County Times
REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should restore
the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the religious
symbol will return.
If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said it
is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
reinstates the cross.
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a message
of favor for one religion over others."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a cross
off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the city
seal.
"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue,
then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided on
its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
ridiculous statement."
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross; discussion fails 10th Amendment test |
16 Nov 2005 05:50:44 AM |
|
|
<snipped for brevity>
"Article 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a message
of favor for one religion over others."
Eliasberg has got the wires crossed big time with respect to
church-state separation issues. After all, Thomas Jefferson, Mr. "wall
of separation" himself, not only didn't have any problems with
regularly attending worship services held in the hall of the House of
Representatives at the Nation's Capitol, but also authorized the US
Marine Band to provide music for worship services in other government
buildings as well. The bottom line is that the ACLU's attack on city
logos containing religious symbols is nothing other than an attack on
our freedoms of speech and religious expression.
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
<snipped for brevity>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 02:40:17 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> writes:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Actually, they'll say "legislation (even when passed via a popular
vote) that violates the constitution will still be struck down
by the courts."
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
By: North County Times
REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should restore
the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the religious
symbol will return.
If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said it
is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
reinstates the cross.
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a message
of favor for one religion over others."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a cross
off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the city
seal.
"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue,
then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided on
its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
ridiculous statement."
And Dana, since this is from Nov. 5th, you could have googled into
the future:
http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/news/ci_3199182
11/09/2005 04:54:00 PM
Christian cross will not be returned to Redlands' logo
Andrea Feathers
Staff Writer
REDLANDS Voters tossed the cross off the city logo for good Tuesday a
decision that will prevent a potentially costly lawsuit from the
American Civil Liberties Union and send what some call a message of
inclusion to citizens of all spiritual backgrounds.
"I'm really gratified that my fellow citizens have understood the
importance of the deeper message of both religion and democracy and
those messages are respect for each other and respect for the law and
Constitution," said Asher Sheppard, co-chairman for the Redlands Values
Coalition, a group that launched a campaign against keeping a religious
symbol on the 1963 city logo.
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
Nearly 60 percent of Redlands voters (9,393 people) turned down Measure
Q Tuesday, settling a decade-old debate on whether the city should
continue to use a Christian cross on its logo.
Now Dana, unless you're a complete hypocrite, you'll CHEER that
a CLEAR MAJORITY voted to REMOVE THE CROSS!
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Young" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 01:22:42 PM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11nj2825ledgg2e@corp.supernews.com...
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will
in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
By: North County Times
REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should
restore
the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the
religious
symbol will return.
If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said
it
is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
reinstates the cross.
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a
message
of favor for one religion over others."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a
cross
off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the
city
seal.
"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue,
then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided
on
its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
ridiculous statement."
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is
the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights
which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
The ACLU is right. I notice the ACLJ isn't getting involved.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 04:27:25 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11nj2825ledgg2e@corp.supernews.com...
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will
in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
By: North County Times
REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should
restore
the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the
religious
symbol will return.
If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said
it
is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
reinstates the cross.
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a
message
of favor for one religion over others."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a
cross
off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the
city
seal.
"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue,
then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided
on
its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
ridiculous statement."
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is
the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights
which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
The aclu is a pack of anti American lawyers whose goal is some place where
the fukin lawyers actually have a say, and everyone is some leftist drone.
***** the ACLU
Jim E
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 05:05:16 AM |
|
|
"Jim E" <YD641387@SEA.net> wrote in message
news:3tvqpcFug37lU1@individual.net...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11nj2825ledgg2e@corp.supernews.com...
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like
L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU
will
in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
By: North County Times
REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should
restore
the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the
religious
symbol will return.
If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said
it
is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
reinstates the cross.
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a
message
of favor for one religion over others."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a
cross
off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the
city
seal.
"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to
sue,
then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided
on
its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
ridiculous statement."
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is
the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights
which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
The aclu is a pack of anti American lawyers whose goal is some place where
the fukin lawyers actually have a say, and everyone is some leftist drone.
***** the ACLU
Another recent case the ACLU took on is to help release convicted pedophiles
in NY. They also oppose the madatory registration of sex offenders to local
police.
The ACLU is really going towards the fringe of society with their actions.
I can support the looking out to make sure a person is not denied due
process and a fair trial, but the ACLU goes way beyond that.
While reading about this, I stumbled on an article out of New Mexico. It
seems 3 people in Las Cruces are suing the city, because the city has 3
crosses as a city emblem. They are syaing that this emblem is an
establishment of religion.
Talk about being petty. Like the city in question has plenty of money to
fight in court against this petty charge.
It is at times like this, I think I am lucky to live up here in Alaska. We
do not have these kind of issues.
Jim E
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
17 Nov 2005 12:36:01 AM |
|
|
Jim E wrote:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11nj2825ledgg2e@corp.supernews.com...
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will
in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
By: North County Times
REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should
restore
the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the
religious
symbol will return.
If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said
it
is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
reinstates the cross.
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a
message
of favor for one religion over others."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a
cross
off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the
city
seal.
"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue,
then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided
on
its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
ridiculous statement."
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is
the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights
which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
The aclu is a pack of anti American lawyers whose goal is some place where
the fukin lawyers actually have a say, and everyone is some leftist drone.
***** the ACLU
yep, nothing more anti-American than defending the constitution and the
rights of the people
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
21 Nov 2005 05:42:40 AM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
Jim E wrote:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11nj2825ledgg2e@corp.supernews.com...
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will
in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
By: North County Times
REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should
restore
the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the
religious
symbol will return.
If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said
it
is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
reinstates the cross.
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a
message
of favor for one religion over others."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a
cross
off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the
city
seal.
"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue,
then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided
on
its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
ridiculous statement."
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires]
that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is
the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to
be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights
which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
The aclu is a pack of anti American lawyers whose goal is some place where
the fukin lawyers actually have a say, and everyone is some leftist drone.
***** the ACLU
yep, nothing more anti-American than defending the constitution and the
rights of the people
For people like Ollie FOllie and Limdoper...
RT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 06:28:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:27:25 -0800, "Jim E" <YD641387@SEA.net> wrote:
The aclu is a pack of anti American lawyers whose goal is some place where
the fukin lawyers actually have a say, and everyone is some leftist drone.
***** the ACLU
And you can thank the ACLU that you can post your moronic drivel
without fear of legal repercussions.
Jim E
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim E" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 06:58:18 AM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bbkln1dlu1e7jm5jef7p0ithouo9n5501a@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:27:25 -0800, "Jim E" <YD641387@SEA.net> wrote:
The aclu is a pack of anti American lawyers whose goal is some place where
the fukin lawyers actually have a say, and everyone is some leftist drone.
***** the ACLU
And you can thank the ACLU that you can post your moronic drivel
without fear of legal repercussions.
BULL *****.
The aclu is only concerned with
1 self promotion
2 raging liberalism, bordering on anarchy
3 lawyer supremacy just above anarchy.
Another group begging for a bounty.
Jim E
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "zach" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 10:30:05 AM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:bbkln1dlu1e7jm5jef7p0ithouo9n5501a@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:27:25 -0800, "Jim E" <YD641387@SEA.net> wrote:
The aclu is a pack of anti American lawyers whose goal is some place where
the fukin lawyers actually have a say, and everyone is some leftist drone.
***** the ACLU
And you can thank the ACLU that you can post your moronic drivel
without fear of legal repercussions.
The ACLU has nothing to do with posting on USENET.
Any bonehead like yourself can post, from anywhere in the world. ACLU
doesn't have that king of reach. They probably wish they did. That way the
whole
world would have to pay them their legal ransom.
zach #33 the ultimate nonbeliever
(note: newsgroups other than alt.atheism snipped)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Pittel" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
17 Nov 2005 12:54:43 PM |
|
|
In alt.politics.usa.republican John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:27:25 -0800, "Jim E" <YD641387@SEA.net> wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >
: >The aclu is a pack of anti American lawyers whose goal is some place where
: >the fukin lawyers actually have a say, and everyone is some leftist drone.
: >
: >
: >***** the ACLU
: And you can thank the ACLU that you can post your moronic drivel
: without fear of legal repercussions.
Prove it.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 08:11:44 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11nj2825ledgg2e@corp.supernews.com...
Hey terrorist traitor - spill any liberal blood today like you've
threatened to do?
What are you waiting for, *****?
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 05:57:06 AM |
|
|
Joseph Welch wrote:
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11nj2825ledgg2e@corp.supernews.com...
Hey terrorist traitor - spill any liberal blood today like you've
threatened to do?
What are you waiting for, *****?
He's all talk.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph Welch" |
|
| Title: Re: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 06:16:41 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <" traRvEsky"@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:437ACA32.9E02117@hotmMOVEail.com...
Hey terrorist traitor - spill any liberal blood today like you've
threatened to do?
What are you waiting for, *****?
He's all talk.
Well, naturally. Fortunately for America - the Department of Homeland
Security takes all threats against Americans seriously. There's no point in
waiting for the guy to actually commit an act of terrorism. I say ship his
***** to Guantanamo.
--
JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky " |
|
| Title: Good. Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 05:20:53 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
By: North County Times
REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should restore
the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the religious
symbol will return.
If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
"This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said it
is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
reinstates the cross.
"The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a message
of favor for one religion over others."
Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a cross
off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the city
seal.
"What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue,
then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided on
its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
ridiculous statement."
--
The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that
the will of the majority shall prevail.
George Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the
only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights which
equal law must protect
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 03:42:34 PM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
[snip]
Which is what they would do if a locality voted to re-institute Jim
Crow
segregation laws. You can't vote to violate the constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 05:21:36 PM |
|
|
On 15 Nov 2005 07:42:34 -0800, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
Dana wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
[snip]
Which is what they would do if a locality voted to re-institute Jim
Crow
segregation laws. You can't vote to violate the constitution.
Unless you're a politician.<G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Pittel" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 12:59:10 AM |
|
|
It's clear that an orginization needs to be formed to fight the
America hating scum aclu that is doing it's best to destroy the US.
In alt.politics.usa.republican Dana <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
: That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
: California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
: County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal or
: San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
: Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will in
: essence say "SCREW YOU!"
: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/11/05/news/californian/riverside/23_53_5611_4_05.txt
: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross
: By: North County Times
: REDLANDS -- Voters decide next week if the "City of Churches" should restore
: the cross to the Redlands seal. When the American Civil Liberties Union
: threatened a costly lawsuit last year if the cross wasn't eliminated,
: officials decided the cross must be erased from the city logo. Many
: residents were outraged and voters will now decide Tuesday if the religious
: symbol will return.
: If Measure Q wins, the ACLU will likely go to court.
: "This is the first time this has happened, to my knowledge," said ACLU
: attorney Peter Eliasberg, who tracks crosses on seals statewide. He said it
: is "highly likely" a lawsuit would be filed against the city if it
: reinstates the cross.
: "The cross is clearly unconstitutional," Eliasberg said. "It sends a message
: of favor for one religion over others."
: Last year, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to take a cross
: off the county's seal under threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU.
: Scott Siegel, who led the drive to put Measure Q on Tuesday's ballot,
: resents that the ACLU forced the city into removing the cross from the city
: seal.
: "What happens in this type of situation is that the ACLU threatens to sue,
: then the city capitulates on a cost basis, and the case is never decided on
: its legal merits," he said. "The ACLU is telling us that it's a foregone
: conclusion that we're going to lose if a suit is filed. That's just a
: ridiculous statement."
: --
: The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that
: the will of the majority shall prevail.
: George Washington
: --------------------------------------------------------------
: The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the
: only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes
: err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived
: Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be
: rightful must be reasonable - the minority possess their equal rights which
: equal law must protect
: Thomas Jefferson
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 06:31:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:59:10 -0600, Frank Pittel
<fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
It's clear that an orginization needs to be formed to fight the
America hating scum aclu that is doing it's best to destroy the US.
By defending your First Amendment rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Pittel" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 07:37:56 PM |
|
|
In alt.politics.usa.republican John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:59:10 -0600, Frank Pittel
: <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >It's clear that an orginization needs to be formed to fight the
: >America hating scum aclu that is doing it's best to destroy the US.
: By defending your First Amendment rights.
Are you dumb enough to actually believe the lies from the aclu? How is
defending the "right" of pedophiles to molest preteen children defending
anyones first amendment rights?
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 07:55:35 PM |
|
|
Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> writes:
In alt.politics.usa.republican John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:59:10 -0600, Frank Pittel
: <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >It's clear that an orginization needs to be formed to fight the
: >America hating scum aclu that is doing it's best to destroy the US.
: By defending your First Amendment rights.
Are you dumb enough to actually believe the lies from the aclu? How is
defending the "right" of pedophiles to molest preteen children defending
anyones first amendment rights?
I see you're dumb enough to believe ridiculous lies about the ACLU.
There is no such right, and the ACLU does not defend molestation.
They DO defend the right of free speech for even noxious groups;
this seem to be where you're confused.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Pittel" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
30 Nov 2005 04:03:23 AM |
|
|
In alt.politics.usa.republican Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
: Frank Pittel <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> writes:
: >In alt.politics.usa.republican John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
: >: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:59:10 -0600, Frank Pittel
: >: <fwp@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote:
: >: >It's clear that an orginization needs to be formed to fight the
: >: >America hating scum aclu that is doing it's best to destroy the US.
: >: By defending your First Amendment rights.
: >Are you dumb enough to actually believe the lies from the aclu? How is
: >defending the "right" of pedophiles to molest preteen children defending
: >anyones first amendment rights?
: I see you're dumb enough to believe ridiculous lies about the ACLU.
: There is no such right, and the ACLU does not defend molestation.
You may want to look into their defense of nambla.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
16 Nov 2005 07:49:26 PM |
|
|
Frank Pittel wrote:
Are you dumb enough to actually believe the lies from the aclu? How is
defending the "right" of pedophiles to molest preteen children defending
anyones first amendment rights?
I think you'll find that the ACLU didn't defend the right
of paedophiles to molest preteen children, if you look
a bit harder.
You might ask who would be interested in presenting it
that way, though.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
15 Nov 2005 03:17:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Government has no business promoting religion
------------------------------------------------------
houston toilet for ladies
</groups?q=author:danaraffaniello%40worldnet.
att.net&start=210&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT>F-8&selm=63j
060%24j0j%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net&rnum=225>
use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
19 Nov 2005 10:00:58 PM |
|
|
<Knickkkers@Hang-up.com> wrote in message
news:reujn111ojcm69simvo182k1mbcmhpe8e6@4ax.com...
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:12:45 -0900, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
That is the chilling title to the story from the North County Times,
California If you live in Redlands or other parts of the state like L.A.
County where the ACLU sued to remove a tiny cross from the county's seal
or
San Diego where an ACLU related attorney sued to remove the historic Mt.
Soledad cross and you vote to keep or restore such symbols, the ACLU will
in
essence say "SCREW YOU!"
Government has no business promoting religion
Government also has no business surpressing religion. If the voters of the
community vote in favor of a particular City Seal, then the city ought to be
able to use the approved seal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
21 Nov 2005 04:25:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Government has no business promoting religion
Government also has no business surpressing [sic] religion.
Not endorsing a particular variety of religion is not suppressing
religion.
If the voters of the community vote in favor of a particular
City Seal, then the city ought to be able to use the approved seal.
That is not how the courts have ruled in this regard.
Putting religious symbols on government property (street signs, police
cars, stationery, etc.) is endorsing religion.
Even the APPEARANCE of endorsing religion is not allowed.
"History tells us that how much we want to believe a proposition is
not a reliable guide as to whether it is true." -- Steven Pinker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
23 Nov 2005 05:28:01 AM |
|
|
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051120221956.27366B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Government has no business promoting religion
Government also has no business surpressing [sic] religion.
Not endorsing a particular variety of religion is not suppressing
religion.
It is if the voters want whatever it is that they voted for.
If the voters of the community vote in favor of a particular
City Seal, then the city ought to be able to use the approved seal.
That is not how the courts have ruled in this regard.
Sure, but that is not how the courts SHOULD have ruled. That is the point.
The citizens WANT to make a statement through a City Seal, or a Cross on a
mountain top, or whatever.
There is historical truth to many of the religious symbols that city and
county governments want to use. For example, the County of Los Angeles --
indeed the entire state of California -- was founded largely through the
efforts of the Spainish Missions that were built along the entire state. Los
Angeles County has several mission sites, and wanted to recognize the
importance of the missions in the formation of the county, and the state.
The ACLU filed suit.
The City of San Diego erected a huge memorial marker to honor the men and
women lost in the Korean War. The ACLU filed suit.
Some private citizens erected a Ten Commandments monument outside the
statehouse in Texas, the ACLU filed suit.
It is time the USSC declare that the mere recognition of religion is not in
fact an endorsement of religion. Religion is all around us, for better or
worse. It's there, and we should recognize it. As long as nobody come to
your house and drags you of to prayer meetings, why should you give a rat's
***** that there is religion all around you? I don't care.
I am not a religious zealot, quite the opposite really. But I don't care
that people are religious. I don't care that we as a society observe
Christian holidays to a greater extent than other flavors of religion. We
live in a country where the majority rules, and all I can hope for is that I
am not forced to become part of the majority. I don't need the majority to
make concessions on my behalf, I only need them to leave me the Hell alone.
If they want a day off, and I get the day off too, then so fucking what?
If they want a cross on the county seal, or on top of a hill, then so what?
If I travel across the country and go into a town where there is a huge
Jewish, or Hindu, or whatever, population, then I'd expect the city seal to
recognize the heritage of the residents. As long as I wasn't punished for
not being a part of the group, I don't care that the group identity is
proudly displayed on the city seal or in a park on the top of the nearby
hill. I especially see that local governments have a greater latitude in the
display of these sorts of things that the Federal government doesn't have.
The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall make no law, it says nothing
about states, and the several lower levels of government that exist. The
14th Amendment was crafted to make sure that all persons were treated the
same by the state, and the other levels of government, but it is my opinion
that the 14th was not intended to force all states to do everything the
same. This completely violates the entire doctrine of States Rights that the
Founding Fathers wanted to preserve and protect. If the 14th forces all
states to do everything the same, then it says in effect that Federalism
shall decide what we can do, and Federalism was a huge problem for the
Founding Fathers and the first 13 States to deal with.
It is perfectly reasonable that any state should treat all of its citizens
equally, and this is what the 14th says. But there is no reason what one
state can treat its citizens differently than another state. For example,
Texas' sodomy laws were struck down because Texas has different views on
this sort of thing than other states have. We are seeing today large numbers
of voters voting against certain social trends that the minority wants to
impose on the majority. The majority by definition gets to define what is
acceptable and what is not.
Putting religious symbols on government property (street signs, police
cars, stationery, etc.) is endorsing religion.
No it isn't, or it doesn't have to be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
23 Nov 2005 03:31:26 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051120221956.27366B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Government has no business promoting religion
Government also has no business surpressing [sic] religion.
Not endorsing a particular variety of religion is not suppressing
religion.
It is if the voters want whatever it is that they voted for.
Not if you're talking about the USA. Here, the government does
not have the power to impose religion on the citizenry.
But you've never understood religious freedom.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
24 Nov 2005 12:35:48 AM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11o92qe757nqqaf@corp.supernews.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051120221956.27366B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Government has no business promoting religion
Government also has no business surpressing [sic] religion.
Not endorsing a particular variety of religion is not suppressing
religion.
It is if the voters want whatever it is that they voted for.
Not if you're talking about the USA. Here, the government does
not have the power to impose religion on the citizenry.
And no one is imposing a religious belief on uou.
Yet you want the court to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else.
But you've never understood religious freedom.
Seems it is you who does not understand religious freedom.
And that you are an intolerant bigot to boot.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU: We'll sue if voters approve cross |
27 Nov 2005 06:34:58 AM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:11o92qe757nqqaf@corp.supernews.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> writes:
"human" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1051120221956.27366B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Government has no business promoting religion
Government also has no business surpressing [sic] religion.
Not endorsing a particular variety of religion is not suppressing
religion.
It is if the voters want whatever it is that they voted for.
Not if you're talking about the USA. Here, the government does
not have the power to impose religion on the citizenry.
But you've never understood religious freedom.
Again, there is a difference in imposition and recognition. You are pissed
that there is recognition, but you are protected from imposition. These are
two very different principles. By denying recognition, you are violating --
potentially -- the religious freedom of those that you assert I do not
understand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
