Religions > Atheism > Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
02 Aug 2006 01:04:08 AM |
| Object: |
Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
---
Senate Votes To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt.
Tue Aug 1, 10:30 PM ET
The U.S. Senate unanimously approved legislation Tuesday to transfer the
land upon which the Mount Soledad cross sits on to the federal
government to be preserved as a national war memorial.
The House overwhelmingly backed a parallel bill last month that seeks to
preserve the cross by allowing the federal government to acquire the
land and have it managed by the Secretary of Defense.
"Today's vote represents a significant step forward in the effort to
preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial," said Rep. Duncan Hunter
(news, bio, voting record), R-El Cajon, who authored the House bill.
"The action taken by both the House and Senate reaffirm the overwhelming
desire of the San Diego community to keep the memorial exactly where it
has proudly stood for over 50 years," the congressman said.
The bill now goes to President George W. Bush, who has said he will sign
it.
A 17-year legal battle has been waged over the constitutionality of
having a Christian cross on city-owned property. The original lawsuit
was brought by atheist Phillip Paulson in 1989.
James McElroy, Paulson's attorney, could not immediately be reached.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said she was
pleased with the vote.
"I do not believe the cross should be torn down," she said. "The Mount
Soledad cross has been a great source of hope and inspiration for
decades, and it has important historical significance to veterans and
San Diegans alike."
Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., concurred.
"I am pleased that the Senate passed the Hunter legislation to preserve
this historic memorial to our veterans, and I hope that the president
will quickly sign it into law," Boxer said.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed to intervene in the
case last month, issuing a stay of a federal judge's ruling ordering the
city to remove the cross by today's date or face fines of $5,000 per day.
Three years ago, the Supreme Court refused to consider the dispute.
Judges have twice ruled that the sale of the land surrounding the
memorial to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association was unconstitutional.
The group maintains the site, along with hundreds of plaques that pay
tribute to individual veterans of foreign wars.
In a special election last summer, 75 percent of San Diegans cast
ballots in favor of Proposition A, which allowed the city to transfer
the cross to the National Park Service to be designated a national war
memorial.
A Superior Court judge subsequently ruled that the ballot measure was
invalid and unenforceable because it gave preferential treatment to one
religion over another. An appeal is pending.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
city's request to hold off on Thompson's order to remove the cross, but
agreed to hear arguments on a full appeal of the case in October.
The cross was built in 1954 as a memorial to veterans of the Korean War.
In a statement, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said allowing the cross to be
removed would "send the wrong message to our nation's veterans."
"The transfer of the memorial to the federal government would allow it
to stand as a permanent reminder to all of our appreciation of the cost
paid by those who serve to keep our nation free," he said.
---
http://news.yahoo.com/s/kgtv/20060802/lo_kgtv/9612098
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To FederalGovt. |
05 Aug 2006 09:59:28 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <PHEAg.29689$so3.6417@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <44d20676$0$60380$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-595B34.23040801082006@news.giganews.com...
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
Why's it got you so pissy, honestly? You need a Prozac.
I care about our Constitution. That's all.
Nonsense. If you did, you would read it, and know that it contains a
"free exercise" and "free expression" clause in addition to an
"establishment clause." You're just interested in controlling other
people.
You have it exactly bass ackwards. I don't want others controlling me
through their religious nonsense. If putting a huge xtian cross on
public land is not establishing religion then the Constitution has no
meaning.
Oh I get, the Soledad cross is controlling you. Tell us about the
secret mind-control device inside it, we're all fascinated to hear.
And our Constitution is not one clause. I told you, that it was
constructed to balance competing ideals, among which are the rights to
free exercise of religion and of expression (including religious
expression). You have convinced yourself that the Establishment clause
is not only paramount, but as broad as you want to make it. Our
Constitution is also designed to allow the people to rule themselves,
through their elected representatives and (as is the case here) through
ballot referenda as well (which was overwhelmingly in favor of the
cross). Before a court may overturn another branch of government, one
must clearly demonstrate that their actions are not legal. You have not
come anywhere close to meeting that burden.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
06 Aug 2006 12:31:17 AM |
|
|
In article <kn2Bg.13225$4c7.7569@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <PHEAg.29689$so3.6417@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <44d20676$0$60380$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-595B34.23040801082006@news.giganews.com...
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
Why's it got you so pissy, honestly? You need a Prozac.
I care about our Constitution. That's all.
Nonsense. If you did, you would read it, and know that it contains a
"free exercise" and "free expression" clause in addition to an
"establishment clause." You're just interested in controlling other
people.
You have it exactly bass ackwards. I don't want others controlling me
through their religious nonsense. If putting a huge xtian cross on
public land is not establishing religion then the Constitution has no
meaning.
Oh I get, the Soledad cross is controlling you. Tell us about the
secret mind-control device inside it, we're all fascinated to hear.
Do you always make such a fool out of yourself or is this a special
occasion?
And our Constitution is not one clause. I told you, that it was
constructed to balance competing ideals, among which are the rights to
free exercise of religion and of expression (including religious
expression). You have convinced yourself that the Establishment clause
is not only paramount, but as broad as you want to make it. Our
Constitution is also designed to allow the people to rule themselves,
through their elected representatives and (as is the case here) through
ballot referenda as well (which was overwhelmingly in favor of the
cross). Before a court may overturn another branch of government, one
must clearly demonstrate that their actions are not legal. You have not
come anywhere close to meeting that burden.
Court after court has decided that the cross is illegal. It must come
down.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To FederalGovt. |
06 Aug 2006 05:23:21 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <kn2Bg.13225$4c7.7569@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <PHEAg.29689$so3.6417@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <44d20676$0$60380$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-595B34.23040801082006@news.giganews.com...
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
Why's it got you so pissy, honestly? You need a Prozac.
I care about our Constitution. That's all.
Nonsense. If you did, you would read it, and know that it contains a
"free exercise" and "free expression" clause in addition to an
"establishment clause." You're just interested in controlling other
people.
You have it exactly bass ackwards. I don't want others controlling me
through their religious nonsense. If putting a huge xtian cross on
public land is not establishing religion then the Constitution has no
meaning.
Oh I get, the Soledad cross is controlling you. Tell us about the
secret mind-control device inside it, we're all fascinated to hear.
Do you always make such a fool out of yourself or is this a special
occasion?
In other words, you have no reply, because the cross is doing you no
harm whatsoever.
And our Constitution is not one clause. I told you, that it was
constructed to balance competing ideals, among which are the rights to
free exercise of religion and of expression (including religious
expression). You have convinced yourself that the Establishment clause
is not only paramount, but as broad as you want to make it. Our
Constitution is also designed to allow the people to rule themselves,
through their elected representatives and (as is the case here) through
ballot referenda as well (which was overwhelmingly in favor of the
cross). Before a court may overturn another branch of government, one
must clearly demonstrate that their actions are not legal. You have not
come anywhere close to meeting that burden.
Court after court has decided that the cross is illegal. It must come
down.
Thankfully Congress is willing to act to correct those courts' mistakes.
Checks and balances and all that. Too bad you avoided the issue once
again by refusing to telling us why you think that establishment clause
is deserving broad and overriding importance, while the free exercise nd
expression clauses must be narrowly interpreted and of lesser importance
to you.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
06 Aug 2006 11:34:10 PM |
|
|
In article <tqjBg.30872$so3.29337@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <kn2Bg.13225$4c7.7569@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <PHEAg.29689$so3.6417@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <44d20676$0$60380$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-595B34.23040801082006@news.giganews.com...
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
Why's it got you so pissy, honestly? You need a Prozac.
I care about our Constitution. That's all.
Nonsense. If you did, you would read it, and know that it contains a
"free exercise" and "free expression" clause in addition to an
"establishment clause." You're just interested in controlling other
people.
You have it exactly bass ackwards. I don't want others controlling me
through their religious nonsense. If putting a huge xtian cross on
public land is not establishing religion then the Constitution has no
meaning.
Oh I get, the Soledad cross is controlling you. Tell us about the
secret mind-control device inside it, we're all fascinated to hear.
Do you always make such a fool out of yourself or is this a special
occasion?
In other words, you have no reply, because the cross is doing you no
harm whatsoever.
And our Constitution is not one clause. I told you, that it was
constructed to balance competing ideals, among which are the rights to
free exercise of religion and of expression (including religious
expression). You have convinced yourself that the Establishment clause
is not only paramount, but as broad as you want to make it. Our
Constitution is also designed to allow the people to rule themselves,
through their elected representatives and (as is the case here) through
ballot referenda as well (which was overwhelmingly in favor of the
cross). Before a court may overturn another branch of government, one
must clearly demonstrate that their actions are not legal. You have not
come anywhere close to meeting that burden.
Court after court has decided that the cross is illegal. It must come
down.
Thankfully Congress is willing to act to correct those courts' mistakes.
Checks and balances and all that.
Of course it's an election year and many in Congress feel the need to
pander to their religious right base. The transfer from city to federal
land does not make the public religious display any more constitutional.
Too bad you avoided the issue once
again by refusing to telling us why you think that establishment clause
is deserving broad and overriding importance, while the free exercise nd
expression clauses must be narrowly interpreted and of lesser importance
to you.
No one is denying the right of the people to express their beliefs in
their churches, in their homes and on private property. Time and again
the courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not permit
government sponsored public religious displays especially if they favor
or give the appearance of favoring one religion over another. A
Christian cross on a mountain top can have only one meaning. Even worse
is the city's attempt to disguise the cross as a 'war memorial'. Do they
mean to imply that only christians died for this country? Or maybe they
believe that the deaths or christian soldiers deserve more honor than
those of non christians. If they want a proper war memorial, tear the
cross down and replace it with a flagpole, an obelisk, a statue, or some
suitable symbol that would honor all of our dead.
There is no difference between this case and Roy Moore's 10
Commandments. The cross is illegal and must come down.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To FederalGovt. |
07 Aug 2006 06:22:05 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <tqjBg.30872$so3.29337@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <kn2Bg.13225$4c7.7569@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <PHEAg.29689$so3.6417@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <44d20676$0$60380$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-595B34.23040801082006@news.giganews.com...
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
Why's it got you so pissy, honestly? You need a Prozac.
I care about our Constitution. That's all.
Nonsense. If you did, you would read it, and know that it contains a
"free exercise" and "free expression" clause in addition to an
"establishment clause." You're just interested in controlling other
people.
You have it exactly bass ackwards. I don't want others controlling me
through their religious nonsense. If putting a huge xtian cross on
public land is not establishing religion then the Constitution has no
meaning.
Oh I get, the Soledad cross is controlling you. Tell us about the
secret mind-control device inside it, we're all fascinated to hear.
Do you always make such a fool out of yourself or is this a special
occasion?
In other words, you have no reply, because the cross is doing you no
harm whatsoever.
And our Constitution is not one clause. I told you, that it was
constructed to balance competing ideals, among which are the rights to
free exercise of religion and of expression (including religious
expression). You have convinced yourself that the Establishment clause
is not only paramount, but as broad as you want to make it. Our
Constitution is also designed to allow the people to rule themselves,
through their elected representatives and (as is the case here) through
ballot referenda as well (which was overwhelmingly in favor of the
cross). Before a court may overturn another branch of government, one
must clearly demonstrate that their actions are not legal. You have not
come anywhere close to meeting that burden.
Court after court has decided that the cross is illegal. It must come
down.
Thankfully Congress is willing to act to correct those courts' mistakes.
Checks and balances and all that.
Of course it's an election year and many in Congress feel the need to
pander to their religious right base. The transfer from city to federal
land does not make the public religious display any more constitutional.
They are following the will of the great majority of their constituents.
That is how democracy works. One man's pander, is another man's
accountability, unless the representative is acting against his own
conscience.
Too bad you avoided the issue once
again by refusing to telling us why you think that establishment clause
is deserving broad and overriding importance, while the free exercise nd
expression clauses must be narrowly interpreted and of lesser importance
to you.
No one is denying the right of the people to express their beliefs in
their churches, in their homes and on private property.
The Constitution does *not* prohibit people from exercising their
religion on public property either! You don't like religion. Tough.
You cannot prevent people from exercising theirs when and where they
want, within certain limitations.
Time and again
the courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not permit
government sponsored public religious displays especially if they favor
or give the appearance of favoring one religion over another. A
Christian cross on a mountain top can have only one meaning. Even worse
is the city's attempt to disguise the cross as a 'war memorial'. Do they
mean to imply that only christians died for this country? Or maybe they
believe that the deaths or christian soldiers deserve more honor than
those of non christians. If they want a proper war memorial, tear the
cross down and replace it with a flagpole, an obelisk, a statue, or some
suitable symbol that would honor all of our dead.
I'm not debating whether I find it an appropriate display. I don't
think it is. I am saying that it is legal, and so I just have to live
with it. And the legal history is rather mixed. For example, the court
ruled that nativity scenes to be legal provided the display included
other elements (like reindeer).
There is no difference between this case and Roy Moore's 10
Commandments. The cross is illegal and must come down.
There are differences. The display is in a public park, not at a
courthouse. Parks are created for the purpose of displaying public art,
among other things. Just as a public museum may house religion
inspired artwork, so may a park. The park has more than just a cross,
it has reindeer (so to speak) and other ***** to look at, so it passes
the O'Connor/Kennedy test, to wit:
# Six concentric walls will hold 3,200 black granite plaques purchased
by donors and engraved with the names and photos of war veterans -
currently more than 1,800 are in place.
# Each plaque 'tells the story' of a veteran's military service for our
country.
# Unique memorial that honors veterans - living and deceased - from all
wars and conflicts.
# Includes U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard and
Merchant Marine.
# Originally dedicated as Korean War Memorial.
# Large American Flag proudly flies over the Memorial.
# 23 bollards honor community and veteran organizations.
# Brick pavers honor veterans and supporters of Mt. Soledad.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
07 Aug 2006 11:42:55 PM |
|
|
In article <xnFBg.32922$so3.7018@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <tqjBg.30872$so3.29337@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <kn2Bg.13225$4c7.7569@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <PHEAg.29689$so3.6417@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <44d20676$0$60380$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-595B34.23040801082006@news.giganews.com...
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this
obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a
clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's
city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
Why's it got you so pissy, honestly? You need a Prozac.
I care about our Constitution. That's all.
Nonsense. If you did, you would read it, and know that it contains a
"free exercise" and "free expression" clause in addition to an
"establishment clause." You're just interested in controlling other
people.
You have it exactly bass ackwards. I don't want others controlling me
through their religious nonsense. If putting a huge xtian cross on
public land is not establishing religion then the Constitution has no
meaning.
Oh I get, the Soledad cross is controlling you. Tell us about the
secret mind-control device inside it, we're all fascinated to hear.
Do you always make such a fool out of yourself or is this a special
occasion?
In other words, you have no reply, because the cross is doing you no
harm whatsoever.
And our Constitution is not one clause. I told you, that it was
constructed to balance competing ideals, among which are the rights to
free exercise of religion and of expression (including religious
expression). You have convinced yourself that the Establishment clause
is not only paramount, but as broad as you want to make it. Our
Constitution is also designed to allow the people to rule themselves,
through their elected representatives and (as is the case here) through
ballot referenda as well (which was overwhelmingly in favor of the
cross). Before a court may overturn another branch of government, one
must clearly demonstrate that their actions are not legal. You have not
come anywhere close to meeting that burden.
Court after court has decided that the cross is illegal. It must come
down.
Thankfully Congress is willing to act to correct those courts' mistakes.
Checks and balances and all that.
Of course it's an election year and many in Congress feel the need to
pander to their religious right base. The transfer from city to federal
land does not make the public religious display any more constitutional.
They are following the will of the great majority of their constituents.
That is how democracy works. One man's pander, is another man's
accountability, unless the representative is acting against his own
conscience.
Too bad you avoided the issue once
again by refusing to telling us why you think that establishment clause
is deserving broad and overriding importance, while the free exercise nd
expression clauses must be narrowly interpreted and of lesser importance
to you.
No one is denying the right of the people to express their beliefs in
their churches, in their homes and on private property.
The Constitution does *not* prohibit people from exercising their
religion on public property either! You don't like religion. Tough.
You cannot prevent people from exercising theirs when and where they
want, within certain limitations.
Time and again
the courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not permit
government sponsored public religious displays especially if they favor
or give the appearance of favoring one religion over another. A
Christian cross on a mountain top can have only one meaning. Even worse
is the city's attempt to disguise the cross as a 'war memorial'. Do they
mean to imply that only christians died for this country? Or maybe they
believe that the deaths or christian soldiers deserve more honor than
those of non christians. If they want a proper war memorial, tear the
cross down and replace it with a flagpole, an obelisk, a statue, or some
suitable symbol that would honor all of our dead.
I'm not debating whether I find it an appropriate display. I don't
think it is. I am saying that it is legal, and so I just have to live
with it. And the legal history is rather mixed. For example, the court
ruled that nativity scenes to be legal provided the display included
other elements (like reindeer).
There is no difference between this case and Roy Moore's 10
Commandments. The cross is illegal and must come down.
There are differences. The display is in a public park, not at a
courthouse. Parks are created for the purpose of displaying public art,
among other things. Just as a public museum may house religion
inspired artwork, so may a park. The park has more than just a cross,
it has reindeer (so to speak) and other ***** to look at, so it passes
the O'Connor/Kennedy test, to wit:
# Six concentric walls will hold 3,200 black granite plaques purchased
by donors and engraved with the names and photos of war veterans -
currently more than 1,800 are in place.
# Each plaque 'tells the story' of a veteran's military service for our
country.
# Unique memorial that honors veterans - living and deceased - from all
wars and conflicts.
# Includes U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard and
Merchant Marine.
# Originally dedicated as Korean War Memorial.
# Large American Flag proudly flies over the Memorial.
# 23 bollards honor community and veteran organizations.
# Brick pavers honor veterans and supporters of Mt. Soledad.
The 'reindeer' were added after the cross was declared illegal in an
attempt to circumvent the ruling. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
the sale illegal.
Read and learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd of story.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
08 Aug 2006 04:50:08 PM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-843D6C.21425507082006@news.giganews.com...
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd of story.
lol. Kook. Don't you have anything else to get worked up over?
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
09 Aug 2006 12:03:08 AM |
|
|
In article <44d906ad$0$60328$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-843D6C.21425507082006@news.giganews.com...
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd of story.
lol. Kook. Don't you have anything else to get worked up over?
Yes. Idiots like you.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
09 Aug 2006 04:31:02 PM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-1C12FB.22030808082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44d906ad$0$60328$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-843D6C.21425507082006@news.giganews.com...
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd of
story.
lol. Kook. Don't you have anything else to get worked up over?
Yes. Idiots like you.
Man, you're high strung.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
09 Aug 2006 11:50:00 PM |
|
|
In article <44da53cb$0$60298$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-1C12FB.22030808082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44d906ad$0$60328$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-843D6C.21425507082006@news.giganews.com...
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd of
story.
lol. Kook. Don't you have anything else to get worked up over?
Yes. Idiots like you.
Man, you're high strung.
No, junior, you've played out your string.
<plonk>
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
10 Aug 2006 12:14:01 PM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-5F047B.21500009082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44da53cb$0$60298$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-1C12FB.22030808082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44d906ad$0$60328$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-843D6C.21425507082006@news.giganews.com...
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd of
story.
lol. Kook. Don't you have anything else to get worked up over?
Yes. Idiots like you.
Man, you're high strung.
No, junior, you've played out your string.
<plonk>
To be proud and inaccessible is to be timid and weak.
Better get your plane ticket to Arlington to start kicking over those
crosses, dummy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
11 Aug 2006 11:44:45 PM |
|
|
On 10 Aug 2006 12:14:01 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-5F047B.21500009082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44da53cb$0$60298$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-1C12FB.22030808082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44d906ad$0$60328$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-843D6C.21425507082006@news.giganews.com...
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd of
story.
lol. Kook. Don't you have anything else to get worked up over?
Yes. Idiots like you.
Man, you're high strung.
No, junior, you've played out your string.
<plonk>
To be proud and inaccessible is to be timid and weak.
Better get your plane ticket to Arlington to start kicking over those
crosses, dummy.
Name-calling indicates lack of an argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
14 Aug 2006 12:04:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:44:45 GMT, (William
Wingstedt) wrote in alt.atheism
On 10 Aug 2006 12:14:01 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-5F047B.21500009082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44da53cb$0$60298$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-1C12FB.22030808082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44d906ad$0$60328$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-843D6C.21425507082006@news.giganews.com...
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd of
story.
lol. Kook. Don't you have anything else to get worked up over?
Yes. Idiots like you.
Man, you're high strung.
No, junior, you've played out your string.
<plonk>
To be proud and inaccessible is to be timid and weak.
Better get your plane ticket to Arlington to start kicking over those
crosses, dummy.
Name-calling indicates lack of an argument.
Fred lacks a brain and spine.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
14 Aug 2006 12:35:01 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:t7b1e2dtksv2vdt5169ua1ntinhdmo2la7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:44:45 GMT, (William
Wingstedt) wrote in alt.atheism
On 10 Aug 2006 12:14:01 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-5F047B.21500009082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44da53cb$0$60298$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-1C12FB.22030808082006@news.giganews.com...
In article <44d906ad$0$60328$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-843D6C.21425507082006@news.giganews.com...
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd
of
story.
lol. Kook. Don't you have anything else to get worked up over?
Yes. Idiots like you.
Man, you're high strung.
No, junior, you've played out your string.
<plonk>
To be proud and inaccessible is to be timid and weak.
Better get your plane ticket to Arlington to start kicking over those
crosses, dummy.
Name-calling indicates lack of an argument.
I'm sorry if you missed the argument made. I know it is subtle, but it's
there, my friend.
Fred lacks a brain and spine.
Yawn, stoney, you're a joke. Why don't you find some low hanging fruit and
stay out of grown folks conversations.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To FederalGovt. |
08 Aug 2006 06:11:59 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
In article <xnFBg.32922$so3.7018@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <tqjBg.30872$so3.29337@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <kn2Bg.13225$4c7.7569@tornado.southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <PHEAg.29689$so3.6417@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
In article <44d20676$0$60380$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-595B34.23040801082006@news.giganews.com...
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this
obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a
clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's
city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
Why's it got you so pissy, honestly? You need a Prozac.
I care about our Constitution. That's all.
Nonsense. If you did, you would read it, and know that it contains a
"free exercise" and "free expression" clause in addition to an
"establishment clause." You're just interested in controlling other
people.
You have it exactly bass ackwards. I don't want others controlling me
through their religious nonsense. If putting a huge xtian cross on
public land is not establishing religion then the Constitution has no
meaning.
Oh I get, the Soledad cross is controlling you. Tell us about the
secret mind-control device inside it, we're all fascinated to hear.
Do you always make such a fool out of yourself or is this a special
occasion?
In other words, you have no reply, because the cross is doing you no
harm whatsoever.
And our Constitution is not one clause. I told you, that it was
constructed to balance competing ideals, among which are the rights to
free exercise of religion and of expression (including religious
expression). You have convinced yourself that the Establishment clause
is not only paramount, but as broad as you want to make it. Our
Constitution is also designed to allow the people to rule themselves,
through their elected representatives and (as is the case here) through
ballot referenda as well (which was overwhelmingly in favor of the
cross). Before a court may overturn another branch of government, one
must clearly demonstrate that their actions are not legal. You have not
come anywhere close to meeting that burden.
Court after court has decided that the cross is illegal. It must come
down.
Thankfully Congress is willing to act to correct those courts' mistakes.
Checks and balances and all that.
Of course it's an election year and many in Congress feel the need to
pander to their religious right base. The transfer from city to federal
land does not make the public religious display any more constitutional.
They are following the will of the great majority of their constituents.
That is how democracy works. One man's pander, is another man's
accountability, unless the representative is acting against his own
conscience.
Too bad you avoided the issue once
again by refusing to telling us why you think that establishment clause
is deserving broad and overriding importance, while the free exercise nd
expression clauses must be narrowly interpreted and of lesser importance
to you.
No one is denying the right of the people to express their beliefs in
their churches, in their homes and on private property.
The Constitution does *not* prohibit people from exercising their
religion on public property either! You don't like religion. Tough.
You cannot prevent people from exercising theirs when and where they
want, within certain limitations.
Time and again
the courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not permit
government sponsored public religious displays especially if they favor
or give the appearance of favoring one religion over another. A
Christian cross on a mountain top can have only one meaning. Even worse
is the city's attempt to disguise the cross as a 'war memorial'. Do they
mean to imply that only christians died for this country? Or maybe they
believe that the deaths or christian soldiers deserve more honor than
those of non christians. If they want a proper war memorial, tear the
cross down and replace it with a flagpole, an obelisk, a statue, or some
suitable symbol that would honor all of our dead.
I'm not debating whether I find it an appropriate display. I don't
think it is. I am saying that it is legal, and so I just have to live
with it. And the legal history is rather mixed. For example, the court
ruled that nativity scenes to be legal provided the display included
other elements (like reindeer).
There is no difference between this case and Roy Moore's 10
Commandments. The cross is illegal and must come down.
There are differences. The display is in a public park, not at a
courthouse. Parks are created for the purpose of displaying public art,
among other things. Just as a public museum may house religion
inspired artwork, so may a park. The park has more than just a cross,
it has reindeer (so to speak) and other ***** to look at, so it passes
the O'Connor/Kennedy test, to wit:
# Six concentric walls will hold 3,200 black granite plaques purchased
by donors and engraved with the names and photos of war veterans -
currently more than 1,800 are in place.
# Each plaque 'tells the story' of a veteran's military service for our
country.
# Unique memorial that honors veterans - living and deceased - from all
wars and conflicts.
# Includes U.S. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard and
Merchant Marine.
# Originally dedicated as Korean War Memorial.
# Large American Flag proudly flies over the Memorial.
# 23 bollards honor community and veteran organizations.
# Brick pavers honor veterans and supporters of Mt. Soledad.
The 'reindeer' were added after the cross was declared illegal in an
attempt to circumvent the ruling. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
the sale illegal.
Read and learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad
It doesn't matter *when* nor why they were added. The reindeer are
there. The site was brought in to compliance with the SCOTUS criteria.
that shoots down your legal comparison to Roy's rock. Not that
they are even required, because the cross stands a work of art and a
historical landmark. The fact that it some find religious significance
in it does not mean that it is an establishment of religion.
The cross is illegal and it must come down. Period, finis, encd of story.
Yes, I'm aware of how closed your mind is to reasonable discussion.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
02 Aug 2006 01:38:01 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
---
Senate Votes To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt.
Tue Aug 1, 10:30 PM ET
The U.S. Senate unanimously approved legislation Tuesday to transfer the
land upon which the Mount Soledad cross sits on to the federal
government to be preserved as a national war memorial.
The House overwhelmingly backed a parallel bill last month that seeks to
preserve the cross by allowing the federal government to acquire the
land and have it managed by the Secretary of Defense.
"Today's vote represents a significant step forward in the effort to
preserve the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial," said Rep. Duncan Hunter
(news, bio, voting record), R-El Cajon, who authored the House bill.
"The action taken by both the House and Senate reaffirm the overwhelming
desire of the San Diego community to keep the memorial exactly where it
has proudly stood for over 50 years," the congressman said.
The bill now goes to President George W. Bush, who has said he will sign
it.
A 17-year legal battle has been waged over the constitutionality of
having a Christian cross on city-owned property. The original lawsuit
was brought by atheist Phillip Paulson in 1989.
James McElroy, Paulson's attorney, could not immediately be reached.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said she was
pleased with the vote.
"I do not believe the cross should be torn down," she said. "The Mount
Soledad cross has been a great source of hope and inspiration for
decades, and it has important historical significance to veterans and
San Diegans alike."
Do you think we could petition them to put up a giant iron maiden on
public land, claiming it would be a source of hope and inspiration?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To FederalGovt. |
02 Aug 2006 04:58:17 AM |
|
|
johac wrote:
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
<snip>
It's about freedom of expression. The cross is a public art work. Just
because it has religious symbolism does not make it an "establishment"
of religion by government. This is really about a culture war between
those who want to express themselves with religious symbolism and those
who are intolerant of religion. We live in a democracy, where the
majority get to decide what at gets displayed in our parks.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
03 Aug 2006 12:08:16 AM |
|
|
In article <ZG_zg.29256$so3.16547@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
<snip>
It's about freedom of expression. The cross is a public art work. Just
because it has religious symbolism does not make it an "establishment"
of religion by government. This is really about a culture war between
those who want to express themselves with religious symbolism and those
who are intolerant of religion. We live in a democracy, where the
majority get to decide what at gets displayed in our parks.
I suggest that you read the Constitution. It is a religious symbol which
serves no other purpose except to express Christianity. It has no place
on public land.
If people want a war memorial let them have a war memorial, not a shrine.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
03 Aug 2006 02:31:36 PM |
|
|
In article <jhachmann-6F1A09.22081602082006@news.giganews.com>, johac wrote:
In article <ZG_zg.29256$so3.16547@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
<snip>
It's about freedom of expression. The cross is a public art work. Just
because it has religious symbolism does not make it an "establishment"
of religion by government. This is really about a culture war between
those who want to express themselves with religious symbolism and those
who are intolerant of religion. We live in a democracy, where the
majority get to decide what at gets displayed in our parks.
I suggest that you read the Constitution. It is a religious symbol which
serves no other purpose except to express Christianity. It has no place
on public land.
If people want a war memorial let them have a war memorial, not a shrine.
It also appears that it didn't start life as a war memorial. It
apparently wasn't considered one until 1989 after the lawsuit was
filed. Instead it was used for Easter services.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
04 Aug 2006 12:16:02 AM |
|
|
In article <slrned4jon.b2r.emma@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
Emma Pease <emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
In article <jhachmann-6F1A09.22081602082006@news.giganews.com>, johac wrote:
In article <ZG_zg.29256$so3.16547@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
<snip>
It's about freedom of expression. The cross is a public art work. Just
because it has religious symbolism does not make it an "establishment"
of religion by government. This is really about a culture war between
those who want to express themselves with religious symbolism and those
who are intolerant of religion. We live in a democracy, where the
majority get to decide what at gets displayed in our parks.
I suggest that you read the Constitution. It is a religious symbol which
serves no other purpose except to express Christianity. It has no place
on public land.
If people want a war memorial let them have a war memorial, not a shrine.
It also appears that it didn't start life as a war memorial. It
apparently wasn't considered one until 1989 after the lawsuit was
filed. Instead it was used for Easter services.
It was erected in 1954 as a memorial to the Korean war dead. However,
it's significance as a memorial was soon forgotten and everyone referred
to it as the Mt. Soledad Cross or the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross since
that was it was primarily used for.
The first suit against the cross was filed in 1989. After several
rulings against the city, the land under the cross was sold to a
'Memorial Association' in a deal rigged so the land would only go to a
group committed to saving the cross,
Recently, the courts ruled that the sale was illegal, and threatened the
city with fines. Two Republican Congressmen got the House to agree to
transfer the land to the federal government thinking that might somehow
save the cross. The Senate inexplicably and without much debate passed
the resolution unanimously. Dubya is expected to sign it.
So it looks like back to court we go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
04 Aug 2006 07:10:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:08:16 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote:
In article <ZG_zg.29256$so3.16547@southeast.rr.com>,
Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
<snip>
It's about freedom of expression. The cross is a public art work. Just
because it has religious symbolism does not make it an "establishment"
of religion by government. This is really about a culture war between
those who want to express themselves with religious symbolism and those
who are intolerant of religion. We live in a democracy, where the
majority get to decide what at gets displayed in our parks.
I suggest that you read the Constitution. It is a religious symbol which
serves no other purpose except to express Christianity. It has no place
on public land.
If people want a war memorial let them have a war memorial, not a shrine.
One would also think that dinosaur bones and carbon dating would make some other
things pretty obvious :-(
Ben
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
02 Aug 2006 07:41:40 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:58:17 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
<snip>
It's about freedom of expression. The cross is a public art work. Just
because it has religious symbolism does not make it an "establishment"
of religion by government. This is really about a culture war between
those who want to express themselves with religious symbolism and those
who are intolerant of religion.
I'm tolerant of religion, I just don't understand why public funds are
used to express religious symbolism.
We live in a democracy, where the
majority get to decide what at gets displayed in our parks.
No we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
I don't recall getting to vote for what gets displayed in our parks.
Must've missed that one...
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Liken" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
03 Aug 2006 09:24:01 AM |
|
|
"William Wingstedt" <William_Wingstedt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:44d09ca6.223776603@Newsgroups.Comcast.net...
I'm tolerant of religion, I just don't understand why public funds are
used to express religious symbolism.
Perhaps you need to RTFA, silly goose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
20 Dec 2006 12:44:25 PM |
|
|
On 3 Aug 2006 09:24:01 -0500, "Fred Liken"
<nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:
"William Wingstedt" <William_Wingstedt@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:44d09ca6.223776603@Newsgroups.Comcast.net...
I'm tolerant of religion, I just don't understand why public funds are
used to express religious symbolism.
Perhaps you need to RTFA, silly goose.
Perhaps you need to PSUPYAUYE, ugly duck.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To FederalGovt. |
02 Aug 2006 06:52:53 PM |
|
|
William Wingstedt wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:58:17 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
<snip>
It's about freedom of expression. The cross is a public art work. Just
because it has religious symbolism does not make it an "establishment"
of religion by government. This is really about a culture war between
those who want to express themselves with religious symbolism and those
who are intolerant of religion.
I'm tolerant of religion, I just don't understand why public funds are
used to express religious symbolism.
Because it is the kind of art that most people want.
We live in a democracy, where the
majority get to decide what at gets displayed in our parks.
No we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
Get over this quibble. I find it tiresome to have to explain that
"democracy" can be used to refer to any form of government that is based
upon popular participation.
I don't recall getting to vote for what gets displayed in our parks.
Must've missed that one...
The people of SD did, indirectly, by voting their representatives in to
office.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
.
|
|
|
| User: "Homer J Simpson" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
03 Aug 2006 01:14:07 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:pVaAg.29594$so3.9006@southeast.rr.com...
No we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
Get over this quibble. I find it tiresome to have to explain that
"democracy" can be used to refer to any form of government that is based
upon popular participation.
Except that only the wealthy, white reactionaries get to participate. The
'darkie purging machine' makes sure of that like it did in FL.
Better to think of it as a theocracy/kleptocracy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate Votes Unanimously To Transfer Soledad Cross Land To Federal Govt. |
03 Aug 2006 07:42:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:52:53 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
William Wingstedt wrote:
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 09:58:17 GMT, Fester <not@home.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
I thought that at least a few senators could see through this obvious
scam. It's not about a war memorial. It's all about keeping a clearly
religious symbol, a Christian cross, on public land. Whether it's city,
state, or federal land should make no difference. It is illegal.
<snip>
It's about freedom of expression. The cross is a public art work. Just
because it has religious symbolism does not make it an "establishment"
of religion by government. This is really about a culture war between
those who want to express themselves with religious symbolism and those
who are intolerant of religion.
I'm tolerant of religion, I just don't understand why public funds are
used to express religious symbolism.
Because it is the kind of art that most people want.
We live in a democracy, where the
majority get to decide what at gets displayed in our parks.
No we don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic.
Get over this quibble. I find it tiresome to have to explain that
"democracy" can be used to refer to any form of government that is based
upon popular participation.
The fact that the citizenry has been quite effectively removed from
making the decisions you've attributed to them is hardly a quibble. I
wouldn't dream of burdening you with explaining government to me, so
take a load off, relax.
I don't recall getting to vote for what gets displayed in our parks.
Must've missed that one...
The people of SD did, indirectly, by voting their representatives in to
office.
"The people" = Eligible voters who bothered to vote.
"indirectly"= had little (mostly nothing) to do with it.
"Representatives"= Either of 2 available lawyer politician candidates
who vainly imagine themselves to represent something, but who mostly
are on an ego trip.
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
--
<^}})<
/\/\
See why we must wage war on terror and against whom we must wage it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
