IMHO, a lot of people fail to see that our Constitution says Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion......BIG, BIG difference. Most of the founders were men of extreme Faith, it is an important part of who they were. Saddly we have overlooked the importance of Faith in society today, no matter the Religion.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
ACLU wants to tear down 75-year-old war Memorial
- Thread Starter Chee-to
- Start date
So not only are you a constititional law expert but you are an expert on the public land use regs for the mojave desert 75 years ago. Save us from having to bow in your presence "GOD". Why don't you just admit that it isn't about the religion and more about your lack of repect for those who have been there to preserve your right to be an A$$ and piss on their leg! 
- Messages
- 6,779
- Reactions
- 1,275
Not relevant as it is not a state sanctioned or supported religious service. People have the freedom to pray anywhere they wish.
- Messages
- 317
- Reactions
- 50
So not only are you a constititional law expert but you are an expert on the public land use regs for the mojave desert 75 years ago. Save us from having to bow in your presence "GOD". Why don't you just admit that it isn't about the religion and more about your lack of repect for those who have been there to preserve your right to be an A$$ and piss on their leg!
I'm confused, this is a firearms forum right? So don't many of those "constitutional law experts," of which we are not, have a pretty back ***-wards view of the second amendment? Why are we suddenly not qualified to read and understand those first ten amendments when it disagrees with your point of view?
As I understand it allowing one faith's monument and not another could certainly be viewed as, "respecting an establishment of religion."
- Messages
- 4,129
- Reactions
- 187
Just to clarify what the Bill of rights actually says;
- Thread Starter
- #46
Probably the same exceptions that are applied to the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, (you can Google the religious references.) They're on public land managed by the national park service, same as the Mojave cross. BTW it was the park service who wouldn't allow a Buddhist monument to be constructed out in the desert, (as if anyone really wanted one out there) they more than likely wouldn't approve one next to the Lincoln Memorial either. Got any U.S. coins or paper bills? Look what's written on them, maybe you fellas can work on getting that removed, ya think ?...
I'll leave it at that.
- Messages
- 317
- Reactions
- 50
"You're wrong, I'm right," is really the best argument you can come up with after your poor attempt to discredit people who disagree with you? This is the internet after all, perhaps I was wrong for expecting a bit more intelligent discourse than that.
- Thread Starter
- #49
LIBERTY LEGAL INSTITUTE
Contacts:
Jennifer Grisham 202.297.1290
[email protected] 972.423.3131, x102
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
October 7, 2009
Liberty Legal Institute Speaks Out on Mojave War Memorial, U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today
WASHINGTON,
<broken link removed>
WASHINGTON, D.C. Following oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court on the Mojave Desert War Memorial (Salazar v. Buono), Kelly Shackelford, Chief Counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which represents more than four million veterans in the case, released the following statement:
This memorial was put up 75 years ago by World War I veterans to honor those who had given their lives for their country. Right now, this memorial is covered in a plywood box. That is a disgrace. Our veterans deserve better. We hope and believe today is the beginning of the end of these attacks on our veterans memorials.
Liberty Legal Institute represents the Sandozes and over four million veterans though the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW), The American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, and American Ex-Prisoners of War, and launched www.DontTearMeDown.com just before Memorial Day in order to bring attention to the case.
Liberty Legal Institute is a legal organization committed to the defense of religious freedoms and First Amendment rights and practices before the U.S. Supreme Court.
30
Visit www.DontTearMeDown.com for photos, detailed trends, and background information. For interviews, contact Jennifer Grisham, director of media, at 202.297.1290 or [email protected].
Contacts:
Jennifer Grisham 202.297.1290
[email protected] 972.423.3131, x102
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
October 7, 2009
Liberty Legal Institute Speaks Out on Mojave War Memorial, U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments Today
WASHINGTON,
<broken link removed>
WASHINGTON, D.C. Following oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court on the Mojave Desert War Memorial (Salazar v. Buono), Kelly Shackelford, Chief Counsel of Liberty Legal Institute, which represents more than four million veterans in the case, released the following statement:
This memorial was put up 75 years ago by World War I veterans to honor those who had given their lives for their country. Right now, this memorial is covered in a plywood box. That is a disgrace. Our veterans deserve better. We hope and believe today is the beginning of the end of these attacks on our veterans memorials.
Liberty Legal Institute represents the Sandozes and over four million veterans though the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW), The American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, and American Ex-Prisoners of War, and launched www.DontTearMeDown.com just before Memorial Day in order to bring attention to the case.
Liberty Legal Institute is a legal organization committed to the defense of religious freedoms and First Amendment rights and practices before the U.S. Supreme Court.
30
Visit www.DontTearMeDown.com for photos, detailed trends, and background information. For interviews, contact Jennifer Grisham, director of media, at 202.297.1290 or [email protected].
Oooh! you must have been in the hall practicing comebacks when the rest of the class was studying American History. Either that or you're a pup and you're not taught real history anymore.
Jumping into a thread to tell us that you're confused as to why you are not allowed to enterpret the constitution however you wish is ok with me. I don't care what you think it tells you.
Some of the guys that the cross is there to memorialize never got to be 25 years old or a lot of other things that you and I have experienced. Their friends or comrads erected a memorial cross in the middle of the So Cal desert to have a place of rememberence. This is a problem with you and your constitutional rights? Or religious freedom? I don't want to take any of your RIGHTS away, but I'm not interested in your feelings.
It would seem as though there are a great number of people who are willing to stand in front of the old guard and say " We got this". You see it's a respect thing, Period!
So I'm a quitter, you win, Bla, Bla, Bla. I'm taking my ball and going home!
Jumping into a thread to tell us that you're confused as to why you are not allowed to enterpret the constitution however you wish is ok with me. I don't care what you think it tells you.
Some of the guys that the cross is there to memorialize never got to be 25 years old or a lot of other things that you and I have experienced. Their friends or comrads erected a memorial cross in the middle of the So Cal desert to have a place of rememberence. This is a problem with you and your constitutional rights? Or religious freedom? I don't want to take any of your RIGHTS away, but I'm not interested in your feelings.
It would seem as though there are a great number of people who are willing to stand in front of the old guard and say " We got this". You see it's a respect thing, Period!
So I'm a quitter, you win, Bla, Bla, Bla. I'm taking my ball and going home!
So not only are you a constititional law expert but you are an expert on the public land use regs for the mojave desert 75 years ago. Save us from having to bow in your presence "GOD". Why don't you just admit that it isn't about the religion and more about your lack of repect for those who have been there to preserve your right to be an A$$ and piss on their leg!
I really hate it when people defend their own interests by throwing up the "it's for the veterans" defence. I AM a veteran and take insult whenever "veteran sympathy" is thrown around to advance somebody's own agenda. It's shameful, and a disgrace to veterans across the country. By the way, I HAVE "been there" and have had friends killed in combat. The last thing I need is sympathy from people who have their own interests in mind.
It seems that you really haven't paid attention to what has been said before.
"This is a problem with you and your constitutional rights? Or religious freedom? I don't want to take any of your RIGHTS away, but I'm not interested in your feelings."
It's not a problem with my rights (I don't want the memorial taken down), but it is with other people. I will restate this for the last time:
The government (to include the park service) cannot approve one religions memorial, and deny all others. That very clearly amounts to the endorsement of one religion. If you don't see that, then I can't help you.
To somebody who is not Christian, it would be a violation of their rights if the government chose to only display Christian memorials.
I have not yet seen anybody make an intelligent legal argument to the contrary.
- Messages
- 6,597
- Reactions
- 19,383
Okay PG, so the correct action of the court would be to force the park service to enable the erection of other memorials that reflect other religions.
But of course that is not what the case is about. Someone wants it torn down, because it "offends" them.
I say let others put up their own, at their own expense, like the first folks did.
And for those that want it torn down? Take a flying leap!
Beware the subtlety of today's tyranny.
But of course that is not what the case is about. Someone wants it torn down, because it "offends" them.
I say let others put up their own, at their own expense, like the first folks did.
And for those that want it torn down? Take a flying leap!
Beware the subtlety of today's tyranny.
- Messages
- 317
- Reactions
- 50
Perhaps your mom, teachers, or other mentors have said something like this before but saying things like that with out any basis for them only makes your stance look weak. For example after your posts I could probably make a correct assessment as to your education level. I won't though, it doesn't contribute to the thread, and would only make me look petty and weak.
As opposed to jumping into a thread to tell others they're not qualified to read the constitution? Pot meet kettle.
But to others when they deny another faith's monument it's no longer about those people it's supposed to be honoring it's about the National Park service respecting an establishment of religion.
Are there circumstances that the Buddhist monument should be denied? Probably, for example, if it was done with the sole purpose of stirring the pot and causing this controversy.
You try to justify it with it's far away and done long ago, why should we care? We should probably care about the 1st amendment rights of those in the So Cal desert for the same reasons we care about the 2nd amendment rights of those in DC or Chicago (both effectively banned handguns for over 20yrs).
So lets see, it's not about the soldiers it's about religion, that's one strawman down. It's not valid to say it's far away and done long ago, that's two more strawmen down. Any other ones?
- Messages
- 317
- Reactions
- 50
Probably the same exceptions that are applied to the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, (you can Google the religious references.) They're on public land managed by the national park service, same as the Mojave cross. BTW it was the park service who wouldn't allow a Buddhist monument to be constructed out in the desert, (as if anyone really wanted one out there) they more than likely wouldn't approve one next to the Lincoln Memorial either. Got any U.S. coins or paper bills? Look what's written on them, maybe you fellas can work on getting that removed, ya think ?...
At least with the Washington Monument and our currency, isn't the claim that it's non-denominational? Of course that could still be seen as offensive to agnosticism, polytheism, or atheism, but I think that's an issue for the next century.
- Thread Starter
- #57
New York Times article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/us/08scotus.html?_r=3&hp
Religion Largely Absent in Argument About Cross
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: October 7, 2009
WASHINGTON A Supreme Court argument on Wednesday about the fate of a cross in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve in southeastern California largely avoided the most interesting question in the case: whether the First Amendments ban on government establishment of religion is violated by the display of a cross as a war memorial.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: U.S. Supreme Court
Enlarge This Image
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Peggy Nienaber, a supporter of the cross, at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Enlarge This Image
Henry and Wanda Sandoz/Liberty Legal Institute, via Associated Press
The cross in the desert was erected in the 1930s by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor fallen service members.
The cross in the desert was erected in the 1930s by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor fallen service members. Ten years ago, Frank Buono, a retired employee of the National Park Service, objected to the cross, saying it violated the establishment clause.
In the intervening decade, Congress and the courts have engaged in a legal tug of war. Congress passed measures forbidding removal of the cross, designating it as a national memorial and, finally, ordering the land under the cross to be transferred to private hands. Federal courts in California have insisted that the cross may not be displayed.
At Wednesdays argument, only Justice Antonin Scalia appeared inclined to reach the establishment clause question.
Other justices were interested in the narrower issue of whether the land transfer would be proper.
Still others asked whether Mr. Buono had suffered an injury concrete and direct enough to give him standing to sue. Mr. Buono, who is a Roman Catholic, has said he objects to the display of any permanent religious symbol on government land.
Most of the argument in the case, Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472, concerned the tangled history of Mr. Buonos lawsuit. A federal judge in California in 2002 ordered the government to stop displaying the cross, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision in 2004. The government chose not to appeal it to the Supreme Court.
The case before the court arose from a second round of litigation concerning whether the law transferring the land under the cross violated the original order. Much of the argument concerned which issues were still before the court.
The question of the meaning of a cross in the context of a war memorial did give rise to one heated exchange, between Justice Scalia and Peter J. Eliasberg, a lawyer for Mr. Buono with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California.
Mr. Eliasberg said many Jewish war veterans would not wish to be honored by the predominant symbol of Christianity, one that signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.
Justice Scalia disagreed, saying, The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.
What would you have them erect? Justice Scalia asked. Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?
Mr. Eliasberg said he had visited Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew, he said, to laughter in the courtroom.
Justice Scalia grew visibly angry. I dont think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead, he said. I think thats an outrageous conclusion.
There was a second testy exchange, this one between Mr. Eliasberg and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Mr. Eliasberg said the veterans organization was unlikely ever to tear down the cross if the transfer called for by Congress went through, citing a plaque that Congress ordered to accompany the cross.
The chief justice asked for the text of the plaque.
This cross in big letters erected in honor of the dead of foreign wars, Mr. Eliasberg responded.
A couple of minutes later, Chief Justice Roberts returned to the subject and corrected Mr. Eliasberg. The actual text on the plaque, the chief justice said, was more elaborate: The cross, erected in memory of the dead of all wars, erected 1934 by members of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Death Valley Post 2884.
Thats a big difference, the chief justice said, explaining that the longer version made clear that the cross was not a government memorial.
Mr. Eliasberg apologized and said he had answered in the context of the question of whether the veterans group would feel constrained to keep the cross up in light of a plaque referring to a cross.
The context of my question, Chief Justice Roberts shot back, was, What does the plaque say?
Mr. Eliasberg apologized some more, saying he had not meant to mislead the court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/us/08scotus.html?_r=3&hp
Religion Largely Absent in Argument About Cross
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: October 7, 2009
WASHINGTON A Supreme Court argument on Wednesday about the fate of a cross in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve in southeastern California largely avoided the most interesting question in the case: whether the First Amendments ban on government establishment of religion is violated by the display of a cross as a war memorial.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: U.S. Supreme Court
Enlarge This Image
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Peggy Nienaber, a supporter of the cross, at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Enlarge This Image
Henry and Wanda Sandoz/Liberty Legal Institute, via Associated Press
The cross in the desert was erected in the 1930s by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor fallen service members.
The cross in the desert was erected in the 1930s by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor fallen service members. Ten years ago, Frank Buono, a retired employee of the National Park Service, objected to the cross, saying it violated the establishment clause.
In the intervening decade, Congress and the courts have engaged in a legal tug of war. Congress passed measures forbidding removal of the cross, designating it as a national memorial and, finally, ordering the land under the cross to be transferred to private hands. Federal courts in California have insisted that the cross may not be displayed.
At Wednesdays argument, only Justice Antonin Scalia appeared inclined to reach the establishment clause question.
Other justices were interested in the narrower issue of whether the land transfer would be proper.
Still others asked whether Mr. Buono had suffered an injury concrete and direct enough to give him standing to sue. Mr. Buono, who is a Roman Catholic, has said he objects to the display of any permanent religious symbol on government land.
Most of the argument in the case, Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472, concerned the tangled history of Mr. Buonos lawsuit. A federal judge in California in 2002 ordered the government to stop displaying the cross, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision in 2004. The government chose not to appeal it to the Supreme Court.
The case before the court arose from a second round of litigation concerning whether the law transferring the land under the cross violated the original order. Much of the argument concerned which issues were still before the court.
The question of the meaning of a cross in the context of a war memorial did give rise to one heated exchange, between Justice Scalia and Peter J. Eliasberg, a lawyer for Mr. Buono with the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California.
Mr. Eliasberg said many Jewish war veterans would not wish to be honored by the predominant symbol of Christianity, one that signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.
Justice Scalia disagreed, saying, The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.
What would you have them erect? Justice Scalia asked. Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?
Mr. Eliasberg said he had visited Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew, he said, to laughter in the courtroom.
Justice Scalia grew visibly angry. I dont think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead, he said. I think thats an outrageous conclusion.
There was a second testy exchange, this one between Mr. Eliasberg and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Mr. Eliasberg said the veterans organization was unlikely ever to tear down the cross if the transfer called for by Congress went through, citing a plaque that Congress ordered to accompany the cross.
The chief justice asked for the text of the plaque.
This cross in big letters erected in honor of the dead of foreign wars, Mr. Eliasberg responded.
A couple of minutes later, Chief Justice Roberts returned to the subject and corrected Mr. Eliasberg. The actual text on the plaque, the chief justice said, was more elaborate: The cross, erected in memory of the dead of all wars, erected 1934 by members of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Death Valley Post 2884.
Thats a big difference, the chief justice said, explaining that the longer version made clear that the cross was not a government memorial.
Mr. Eliasberg apologized and said he had answered in the context of the question of whether the veterans group would feel constrained to keep the cross up in light of a plaque referring to a cross.
The context of my question, Chief Justice Roberts shot back, was, What does the plaque say?
Mr. Eliasberg apologized some more, saying he had not meant to mislead the court.
- Messages
- 6,597
- Reactions
- 19,383
So I guess he will go after Arlington next.
Anyone want to open a stand selling (non-profit of course) crosses just outside the park? We could even rent hammers to drive them in. Then the park service employees could spend their days driving around collecting them!
Question; Does anyone know how large this cross is?
- Messages
- 6,597
- Reactions
- 19,383
This battle was also fought in Eugene a few years back over the cross on the south side of Skinner Butte, overlooking downtown.
The veterans lost and the cross was replaced by a flagpole. The hard left folks in the People's Republik of Eugene even moan about that!
The veterans lost and the cross was replaced by a flagpole. The hard left folks in the People's Republik of Eugene even moan about that!
Wow, justice Scalia is completely out of touch on this issue. I challenge him to find ONE SINGLE Jew or Muslim that would feel honored by the symbol of the cross. That makes absolutely zero sense, what-so-ever.
The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead. Ummm...yea...among Christians. Jews and Muslims wouldn't be too excited to be represented by a cross. Not at all.
The rest of the justices are cowards for not addressing the real issue at hand. The entire court loses credibility on this one.
The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead. Ummm...yea...among Christians. Jews and Muslims wouldn't be too excited to be represented by a cross. Not at all.
The rest of the justices are cowards for not addressing the real issue at hand. The entire court loses credibility on this one.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
-
Aimpoint Duty RDS/3X-C Magnifier With Unity Mounts
- Started by T38
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
247 count of Hornady .458 350gr round nose
- Started by alelord
- Replies: 0
-
