ACLU Wants Cross Removed from Cemetary Plot

[Paula]

Now you're off topic with the analogy.

It was your analogy, not mine.

The point of the analogy, which you clearly missed was: The law does differentiate in matters of scale.

Since when is scale a civil rights issue? You can't seem to accept the fact that the ACLU is way out of its bailiwick here.

Therefore the arguement that a smaller, less obtrusive display allows a larger display is invalid.

Huh? Another blatant misrepresentation of my posts. Be forewarned, that's another a rule violation, along with flaming.

It's an 8-foot tall wire cross with glowing lights.

Where did you find this factoid?

It's sure as heck tacky as all get out, and offensive to a few.

I don't care if it's a glowing fuchsia trapezoid with motorized spinners on it. So long as it violates no cemetery bylaws or city ordinances, it stays!!!

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...

LoL What nonsense! You obviously have grown desperate if you think the strength of your argument relies upon the number of lines contained in someone's response.

I guess I have no arguements that you can respond to.

Not that it should surprise anyone, you have continuously failed to present any cogent argument addressing why the ACLU should take this case. This simply is not a church/state issue.

Playing games and arguing against yourself will not help you at all.

 

[Paula]

Can ANYONE translate this into non-gibberish for me?

Maybe this would be simpler for you to understand:

Rees Lloyd, former staff attorney with the ACLU, now argues the ACLU should not collect profits from taxpayer-funded attorneys fees!

{Excerpted}These lawsuits are nationwide, coast to coast, and run literally into millions of dollars in the pockets of the ACLU in "attorney fee awards" - although in fact neither the ACLU nor its mascot plaintiffs have incurred any actual attorney fees.

It has to be recognized that the ACLU's mission is political. It is an organization of elitists convinced of their sincerity, goodness, intelligence and right to social-engineer American culture and government without ever having to be elected by the people they would govern, and to accomplish their purpose through people like themselves: equally elitist lawyers sitting as judges over mere mortals.

What common sense would dictate a lawsuit against that lone cross in the Mojave Desert honoring World War I veterans? And persecuting the Boy Scouts? The philosopher George Santyana once said, "Fanaticism is the doubling of passion, while halving reason." There you have modern ACLU fanaticism.

The Boy Scouts are not the enemy of America. Veterans and memorials that mark their service to the nation are not the enemies of America. Symbols of our American religious history and heritage in the public square are not threats to our American freedom. Those symbols which the ACLU now so fanatically attacks are but reminders of our American roots, our American heritage, the foundation from which this magnificent edifice of American freedom arose.

http://www.legion.org/includes/printable_version.php?content=pub_mag_values

 

[burrow_owl]

I don't care if it's a glowing fuchsia trapezoid with motorized spinners on it. So long as it violates no cemetery bylaws or city ordinances, it stays!

Not necessarily. If the township gave the plot to a private citizen in order to circumvent first amendment objections, then the establishment clause may well be triggered. At that point, there's the whole Lemon Test stuff, which I believe was being alluded to earlier (the size and gaudiness of the memorial bearing on the reasonable observer question).

 

[Paula]

Not necessarily. If the township gave the plot to a private citizen in order to circumvent first amendment objections, then the establishment clause may well be triggered. At that point, there's the whole Lemon Test stuff, which I believe was being alluded to earlier (the size and gaudiness of the memorial bearing on the reasonable observer question).

Cemeteries do not give away plots; they are sold to individuals who may later transfer or donate them to others.

 

[burrow_owl]

Sure, usually. But people can be mightily stubborn; if Elks Township wanted to put up their affront to good taste but had been prevented by an adverse ruling, I could see 'em deciding to give a plot away to get said affront into the public eye.

 

[Paula]

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.

Consider this: When Rees Lloyd, former ACLU staff counsel was asked this question:

Q: Many charge the ACLU with being "anti-Christian." Is this true?

Mr. Lloyd responded:

A: The ACLU is much too politically correct to ever be expressly or rhetorically anti-Christian. It would react with horror to the suggestion that it is impure. But it is objectively anti-Christian. It is indicted by what it does, not by what it says.

http://www.legion.org/includes/printable_version.php?content=pub_mag_values

 

[starchild]

Shocked! Shocked, I am that a former employee might speak negatively about their former employer.

 

[revolutio]

Consider this: When Rees Lloyd, former ACLU staff counsel was asked this question:

Q: Many charge the ACLU with being "anti-Christian." Is this true?

Mr. Lloyd responded:

A: The ACLU is much too politically correct to ever be expressly or rhetorically anti-Christian. It would react with horror to the suggestion that it is impure. But it is objectively anti-Christian. It is indicted by what it does, not by what it says.

http://www.legion.org/includes/printable_version.php?content=pub_mag_values

Objectively it would seem to be both for and against Christian-causes at different times. But this is just my standard of objectivity based on the number of pro-Christian causes they support.
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17598&c=38

I understand that they take up causes that are seen as being "against Chrsitians" but to call them anti-Christian overall seems to be a rather harsh judgement based on biased selection of cases.

 

[Alarum]

It was your analogy, not mine.

Since when is scale a civil rights issue? You can't seem to accept the fact that the ACLU is way out of its bailiwick here.

I don't know. How big of a microphone am I allowed to build before I'm violating your civil rights by being able to listen to everything you say? Note: This is refering to your scale thing, and not, say, microphones...

Huh? Another blatant misrepresentation of my posts. Be forewarned, that's another a rule violation, along with flaming.

Then either report me or stop trying to intimidate me. That's just rude.

Where did you find this factoid?

From the article in the OP:

I don't care if it's a glowing fuchsia trapezoid with motorized spinners on it. So long as it violates no cemetery bylaws or city ordinances, it stays!!!

Your flawless knowledge of cemetary bylaws and city ordinances impresses me.

LoL What nonsense! You obviously have grown desperate if you think the strength of your argument relies upon the number of lines contained in someone's response.

I'm obviously desperate if I note that you chose not to respond to more then half of what I say? Cherry picking isn't a case helper.

Not that it should surprise anyone, you have continuously failed to present any cogent argument addressing why the ACLU should take this case. This simply is not a church/state issue.

Giant Cross... State property... Giant Cross... State property.

Nope, I can't see why ANYONE would think that.

 

[thirsty]

ACLU - - Atheists Corney Liberals Union.

Good one. This group is really becoming something.

 

[thirsty]

Maybe they should go over to Europe and remove all the crosses from the war graves also. You know the ones who died for the freedom for idiots like ACLU to have freedom of speach tomake such stupid suggestions.

 

[Alarum]

Maybe they should go over to Europe and remove all the crosses from the war graves also. You know the ones who died for the freedom for idiots like ACLU to have freedom of speach tomake such stupid suggestions.

Completely off topic, been done before in this thread, and pointless. Good job, it's a home run!

 

[Rochir]

So, does this cross still stand or do we now need to look out for Über's 100 ft Luther statue?

 

[Norseman]

So, does this cross still stand or do we now need to look out for Über's 100 ft Luther statue?

If it stands, you can count on either a 30 ft. pentegram (which is a war memorial) on a public graveyard which is lit up at night, or a 30 ft. 666. I'm not kidding. It may cost a few thousand, but if we're putting up religious symbols on public cemetaries that aren't marking private graves, then 666 here we come.

 

[rahma]

If it stands, you can count on either a 30 ft. pentegram (which is a war memorial) on a public graveyard which is lit up at night, or a 30 ft. 666. I'm not kidding. It may cost a few thousand, but if we're putting up religious symbols on public cemetaries that aren't marking private graves, then 666 here we come.

616. It would be quite a faux pas if we put up the mark of the wrong beast.

 

[Norseman]

616. It would be quite a faux pas if we put up the mark of the wrong beast.

No, you see it has to be 666. Firstly, 616 has already been taken as a Christian symbol, secondly, a lot of Christians think 666 is the mark of the beast, more than the number who think 616 is the mark. Thusly, I will aggravate more people, and yet not need to be a Christian.

 

[rahma]

No, you see it has to be 666. Firstly, 616 has already been taken as a Christian symbol, secondly, a lot of Christians think 666 is the mark of the beast, more than the number who think 616 is the mark. Thusly, I will aggravate more people, and yet not need to be a Christian.

How about one side that says 666 and one side that says 616? That way, all the bases are covered.

 

[Norseman]

How about one side that says 666 and one side that says 616? That way, all the bases are covered.

I like the way you think! Brilliant!

 

[Rochir]

If it stands, you can count on either a 30 ft. pentegram (which is a war memorial) on a public graveyard which is lit up at night, or a 30 ft. 666. I'm not kidding. It may cost a few thousand, but if we're putting up religious symbols on public cemetaries that aren't marking private graves, then 666 here we come.

I LIKE! MAybe one could add a nice 120 ft Buddha statue as well? And a 9 armed Hindu God?

Also, a large pyramid with a hovering eyes over its top would be nice and please all LOTR fans!

 

[Paula]

Maybe they should go over to Europe and remove all the crosses from the war graves also. You know the ones who died for the freedom for idiots like ACLU to have freedom of speach tomake such stupid suggestions.

The ACLU needs to pick and choose its battles more wisely.

From the article in the OP:

Zoom lenses can make objects in the background appear miniscule by comparison. But you still are unable to answer my question: Where does the NBC article (or any other link presented on this thread) state the actual size of the cross as being 8'-10', or that it has multiple lights as you previously stated?

Giant Cross... State property... Giant Cross... State property.

ROFL Is that the best you can do?