ACLU Wants Cross Removed from Cemetary Plot

[Norseman]

Okay, the original article was a bit ambiguous, is the cross actually designating a grave? Or is it just standing in the cemetery? The latter seems a tad gaudy and unnecessary so I could understand the ACLU's case. But if it is on a grave I think they are being dorks.

Truthfully I don't really care either way since the cemetery owner is clearly okay with people putting the religious symbol they wish on their grave (i.e. the Star of David).

The cemetary is owned by the government. The government forces you to pay them money.

 

[starchild]

So now we're dissing the entire state of Ohio?

Nice false testimony there!!!!

No... let's review!

The tacky christian-kitsch cross is in...

OHIO.

The tackier styrofoam Jesus is in...

OHIO.

So is the Rock and Roll Hall of fame, the Goodyear museum, world's oldest traffic light, Annie Oakley's grave, the Hopalong Cassidy Museum, the birthplace of General Custer, Memorial to Balto the Wonder Dog, Cancer Survivor's Plaza, Unknown Boy Scout Monument, the First Wendy's restaurant, Ohio State Moose Association Museum, National Museum of the US Air Force...

The list goes on and on. Cool and fun sites, places of interest. Just because there are people in the state who enjoy tacky displays of their religion doesn't mean everybody in the state is being dissed.

 

[Paula]

No... let's review!

Yes, let's do. This is what you said earlier:

"I see you mhatten... and I know what you're thinking:

This is the state with the Styrofoam Jesus, right?"

Realizing your faux pas after it's been called to your attention, to save face, you've added:

The tacky christian-kitsch cross is in...

OHIO.

The tackier styrofoam Jesus is in...

OHIO....

Since when is "tacky" illegal?

The list goes on and on. Cool and fun sites, places of interest. Just because there are people in the state who enjoy tacky displays of their religion doesn't mean everybody in the state is being dissed.

Would have been better to say "just because there are a few people in the state..." etc.

 

[starchild]

Yes, let's do. This is what you said earlier:

"I see you mhatten... and I know what you're thinking:

This is the state with the Styrofoam Jesus, right?"

Realizing your faux pas after it's been called to your attention, to save face, you've added:



Since when is "tacky" illegal?



Would have been better to say "just because there are a few people in the state..." etc.

Trust me, the faux pas wasn't mine.

Tacky is not illegal.

Neither is pointing out tacky.

Keep spinning. Lead with your strengths.

 

[Alarum]

Are you from America? Since when is it illegal to place a light on a monument?

So, 8 foot tall, red lit pentagram then. I see.

But no one has built a 20 story building.

The POINT of the ANALOGY is that scale matters. ANALOGY. ANALOGY

Since when can't a person have a cross monument instead of a headstone?

Uh, since there's just basic decency issues involved. It's intimidating. No one is intimidated by a cross headstone. Quite frankly I think you'd be remarkably offended by a Ka'bah in the middle of the graveyard. I doubt you'd mind a crescent moon and star on a grave.

So you too feel the ACLU should be involved in the cemetery decorating business.

When the cemetary decorating buisiness is breaking the 1st amendment? Yes.

 

[Paula]

The POINT of the ANALOGY is that scale matters. ANALOGY.

If there's in violation of some city ordinance, then yes. But that wasn't found to be the case by cemetery trustees; therefore, your analogy is invalid.

Uh, since there's just basic decency issues involved.

Um, I see, and now it's up to the aclu to decide what is or isn't "decent".

It's intimidating.

So now aclu minions would like to dictate what constitutes intimidating graveyard decor. <sigh>

When the cemetary decorating buisiness is breaking the 1st amendment? Yes.

How was the 1st amendment violated?

 

[Alarum]

If there's in violation of some city ordinance, then yes. But that wasn't found to be the case by cemetery trustees; therefore, your analogy is invalid.

Cemetary trustees are now final arbiters of legality. Who knew? Many trustees have SAID they are doing legal things, while doing very different things. My analogy remains valid until the law demonstrates that it's invalid.

Um, I see, and now it's up to the aclu to decide what is or isn't "decent".

You didn't even quote me completely. I EXPLAINED why there's decency issues, you ignored them. The ACLU decides what cases to take, based on their analysis of the case's validity. I was presenting one reason that they may have taken it.

So now aclu minions would like to dictate what constitutes intimidating graveyard decor. <sigh>

This is absurd. Please quote me and respond to my arguements.

How was the 1st amendment violated?

Allegedly, the size of the cross, the lighted nature, the non-gravesite location, and its location on public, government property.

 

[NewYorkGal]

Why is it that people opposed to crosses, 10 commandments, etc. always use the same argument? "How would you like a 100 ft. Luther?"......."Can I put a 100 ft. Buddha?"......yada frickin yada. Those things are not the issue, are they? The actual issue is the cross. When someone tries to put up a 100 ft. Buddha, start a thread. Until then - it's a diversionary tactic, and that's all.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Standards for cemetery displays, including size, placement, etc. fall within the purview of responsibility of the owner/site manager of the cemetery, not the ACLU.

The ACLU has no authority whatsoever to remove religious symbols from personal gravesites. Selection of gravestones and religious symbols is the choice of family members, not government, and definitely not the ACLU.

 

[Brad'sDad]

The ACLU supports free expresion, the only time it would ever oppose a cross is when it gives the appearance of government endorsement of religion. If the ACLU was not fighting to preserve my civil liberties I wouldn't be donating money and supporting them.

As someone who is retired military, you would probably know the American Legion has been very vocal in their opposition to the ACLU, especially their national campaign against the Boy Scouts, plus their removal of the Mohave Desert war memorial. The Legion feels their rights to free expression are being violated.

The American Legion also strongly support Congressman John Hostettler's proposed bill to cut off ACLU's legal fees which is expected to be introduced very soon.

http://www.calegion.org/html/legion_fights_aclu.html
http://palominas.blogspot.com/2005/05/stop-aclu-support-hostettler-bill.html

 

[Paula]

My analogy remains valid until the law demonstrates that it's invalid.

Your building analogy erroneously presumes there to be some code or bylaw violation, and so far, we have no reason to believe that has happened. Assuming for argument's sake that were the case, it still wouldn't be an establishment issue.

You didn't even quote me completely. I EXPLAINED why there's decency issues, you ignored them.

That's because they made no sense; i.e., a cemetery cross isn't considered a "decency" issue.

This is absurd. Please quote me and respond to my arguements.

So far, you haven't presented any cogent argument(s), nor have you responded to any of mine. All you're doing is repeating baseless statements and rumors from the thread which have already been refuted.

 

[starchild]

The beauty is that it's not the cemetery's keepers to decide, any more. It's the court's. Just as it's supposed to be, when disagreement cannot be resolved. The ACLU isn't deciding it...

 

[molder]

The ACLU should not be sticking its big nose in a community’s cemetery. If there is a war memorial on a private plot and the community is in favor of it – LET IT BE-" ACLU".

 

[starchild]

The ACLU should not be sticking its big nose in a community’s cemetery. If there is a war memorial on a private plot and the community is in favor of it – LET IT BE ACLU.

If the ACLU were telling a privately owned cemetery what to do, I'd agree. Since that isn't the case, I don't, here. I do love how people are up in arms about allowing the American justice system to actually work.

 

[unjustwar]

Plot owner vows to make the cross bigger!

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/4481346/detail.html

sometimes the ACLU goes too far with this civil liberties junk. They should leave the cross be

 

[praying]

sometimes the ACLU goes too far with this civil liberties junk. They should leave the cross be

"civil liberties junk" I don't consider my freedoms junk.

 

[ACougar]

What people like me pay the ACLU to do is watchdog the seperation of Church (any Church) and State (government.) We also pay the ACLU to protect the rights of individual Americans freedom of expression. Why is this so hard to understand?

Were the cross a symbol of individual expression, the ACLU would be inclined to protect it, since this cross would seem to be a government endorsement of a specific religion the ACLU opposes it.

You can disagree with seperation of church and state, you can disagree with the rights of individuals to freedom of religious expression, however it's dishonest to keep implying that the ACLU is fighting the rights of anyone (who doesn't represent government) to express themselves.

 

[Alarum]

Your building analogy erroneously presumes there to be some code or bylaw violation, and so far, we have no reason to believe that has happened. Assuming for argument's sake that were the case, it still wouldn't be an establishment issue.

Now you're off topic with the analogy. The point of the analogy, which you clearly missed was: The law does differentiate in matters of scale. Therefore the arguement that a smaller, less obtrusive display allows a larger display is invalid.

That's because they made no sense; i.e., a cemetery cross isn't considered a "decency" issue.

It's an 8-foot tall wire cross with glowing lights. It's sure as heck tacky as all get out, and offensive to a few.

So far, you haven't presented any cogent argument(s), nor have you responded to any of mine. All you're doing is repeating baseless statements and rumors from the thread which have already been refuted.

Given how the number of lines from my posts that you're quoting keeps decreasing, I beg to differ. It's amazing how the amount quoted just gets smaller and smaller... I guess I have no arguements that you can respond to.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As someone who is retired military, you would probably know the American Legion has been very vocal in their opposition to the ACLU, especially their national campaign against the Boy Scouts, plus their removal of the Mohave Desert war memorial. The Legion feels their rights to free expression are being violated.

Let free expression be free then, without governmental sponsors...

The American Legion also strongly support Congressman John Hostettler's proposed bill to cut off ACLU's legal fees which is expected to be introduced very soon.

Show of hands, please... does anyone think that a bill designed to prevent the ACLU (And only the ACLU) from collecting legal fees is even remotely constitutional?

 

[starchild]

Let free expression be free then, without governmental sponsors...

Show of hands, please... does anyone think that a bill designed to prevent the ACLU (And only the ACLU) from collecting legal fees is even remotely constitutional?

No. Unconstitutional,, unAmerican, unPatriotic, and a career breaker. Let him introduce it. I long to hear the laughter from people With A Clue.

 

[Paula]

Show of hands, please... does anyone think that a bill designed to prevent the ACLU (And only the ACLU) from collecting legal fees is even remotely constitutional?

Another rumor in the making. The proposed bill does not specifically mention the ACLU. It seeks to amend the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Section 1988, which would prohibit any prevailing party from being awarded attorneys fee in religious establishment cases, but not in other civil rights filings.