JDG wrote:
You have stated that you believe the VFW is Constitutionall prohibited because it is, quote, "exclusionary.... and offensive."
I don't believe I ever said anything about the VFW except that their involvement in this argument is irrelevant. By allowing the religious symbol to remain the government, not the VFW, are excluding a segment of the population.
I noted at the time that I do not believe that the statement of your including the above quote
??
was accurately reflecting the underpinnings of your logic.
I am rephasizing that point now by ironically pointing out an inconsistency
in your logic, based upon your previous arguments that "exclusionary... and offensive" actions/speech such as uncermoniously burning the American flag are in fact *not* prohibited by the Constitution, but in fact are
*protected* by the Constitution.
It doesn't matter if the VFW, the BMW or the WWW placed the monument. Their speech has nothing to do with the ruling or the quote I posted. Here's the quote again:
"Eliasberg scoffed at the government's argument that the site is a war memorial. "That doesn't honor Muslim veterans, Jewish veterans, atheist veterans or agnostic veterans," Eliasberg said. "It's a preeminent symbol of a religion. If we want to have a war memorial on federal land, the government certainly knows how to do that without using a divisive sectarian religious symbol."
In case you missed it, the government is referenced twice, the VFW not at all.
-- Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
