Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
I've done some more reading on this issue, and appears that the VFW is 60+ years old, which is interesting since Mojave National Preserve only dates back until the early 1990's. This means that the Memorial predates the National Park designation - although it may not predate federal ownership. What is interesting, however, is that ordinarily the National Park Service is required to preserve all resources associated with a Park - geological, biological, environmental, and cultural. Thus, this Court ruling would appear to jeopardize NPS preservation of religious cultural resources in a number of Parks, included preserved churches in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Cape Lookout National Seashore, as well as Native American ceremonial kivas at numerous Parks throughout the Southwest. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
JDG wrote: Thus, this Court ruling would appear to jeopardize NPS preservation of religious cultural resources in a number of Parks, included preserved churches in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Cape Lookout National Seashore, as well as Native American ceremonial kivas at numerous Parks throughout the Southwest. If it _does_ have considerable historical significance, I would agree with you. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
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
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
At 09:02 PM 6/15/04 -, iaamoac wrote: Slate's most excellent Dahlia Lithwick had a great article yesterday explaining why in fact that US Supreme Court decision was not ducking the issue, but in fact made the correct decision: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102381/ Even if you believe the words under God violate the Constitution, as I door at least violate the court's line of cases in this area, as does Clarence Thomasit's reasonable to say that Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow just wasn't the right case to test that proposition. Too many other things were at stake. You can call them technicalities. I like to call them children. Ask a divorced or unmarried parent with primary custody of a child what was at stake in this case, and you'll get an answer that differs profoundly from the headlines: The lawyer's trick here came from Michael Newdow, who wanted to override the religious decisions made by his daughter's mother. (The two never married.) Allocating the duties and obligations of custodial and noncustodial parents has always been the province of state courts. It's a hideous job, and no one should have to do it. But the simple fact is that judges decide on a primary parent, and the other parent can either try to change that arrangement or learn to live with it. Initially, Newdow went for door No. 3. He tried to use a backdoor to force the issue first and only tried to modify the custody agreement later. And it's pretty clear that he is not a loving parent trying to do what's best for his child, but he sees her as no more than an inanimate posession he can use to get something he selfishly desires. I would certainly hate to hear that he had applied for and benn granted custody of her (and not because of his religious views, but because I don't think he loves her) . . . -- Ronn! ;-) (I am having e-mail problems this weekend.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
JDG wrote: At 09:36 PM 6/15/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: Because it is on U.S. Government property it isn't the VFW's speech that is in question. Because it is on U.S. government property is the U.S. Government's speech. The VFW doesn't figure at all in the decision, their involvement is completely, totally irrelevant. So, in other words, if the VFW wanted to burn an American Flag in Mojave National Preserve, everyone here would be all for it JDG - Presuming of course that the NPS permits fires in Mojave. ;-) BLM permits fires in Black Rock Desert, why shouldn't NPS permit them in Mojave? ;) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:17 AM Subject: Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional At 12:09 AM 6/16/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: The VFW often burns flags John. :-) You caught me! Still, even if the VFW were unceremoniously burning flags in Mojave, I think that they'd probably have a lot more support on Brin-L than they have received for memorializing our First World War dead. With me, they would, even though I would personally appreciate a cross in any family memorial when I die. The reason is the vast difference in the types of acts involved. Let me explain my position with an example that illustrates the difference I am talking about by controlling another variable. Let us say that, in 2000, Bikers for Bush wanted to stage a giant rally on the Washington Mall. I would strongly support their right to do so. It is political speech, and it better darned well be protected. I would be upset with Clinton if he did anything but make sure that they followed the usual requirements for massed marches, regarding logistics, etc. (i.e. the same requirements that he would require for causes he has supported.) At the same time, if Governmental Gurus for Gore wished to erect a statue of Gore, with wondrous words praising his deeds on the Mall, I'd be strongly opposed. If Clinton were to allow that, I'd be upset with him again. The difference is quite apparent. One is an expression of views over a precise range of time. Governmental lands should be an acceptable place for this. Even if the leaders of government are strongly opposed to the ideas, they must allow the expression of the ideas. But, they need not allow people to set up permanent memorials that state their view. A cross on my grave would represent, to me, my hope in resurrection by the saving power of Jesus, who died on the cross for my sins. A cross, as a memorial for all the World War I dead is problematic. Do Jews, who were taunted as Christ killers, really want a cross to memorialize them? I know a lot of Christians that would be very upset if an idol of one of the minor Hindu gods were placed on governmental lands as a memorial to the war deadparticularly if it included a beloved member of their family. I would strongly support the rights of Christians to be able to conduct worship services on public lands. I see no reason to prohibit the pope from saying mass in a public area when he comes to the US. I also see no reason to prohibit the Dali Lama either. I would be strongly opposed to shutting all public lands to religious groups. But, I would not support a holy statue of Blessed/Saint John XXXIII being placed on the mall by President Kerry. So, the difference between flag burning and a permanent cross on public lands is very clear to me. One is allowing political expression. I support that, as since allowing private political religious expression is clearly enshrined in the first amendment. The other is the government supporting a particular religious view: which is reasonably interpreted as establishing religion, and thus prohibited by the same first ammendment. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
Doug said: 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. I really don't understand what the problem is in using crosses as memorials. It's not as if anyone's being indoctrinated by a war grave, is it? Rich, who is with JDG on this one. GCU Evangelical Atheist ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
At 10:55 PM 6/14/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: I don't think you said that right. I am unaware of any Constitutional provision against exclusionary and offensive speech on federal lands. JDG - Something about defending your right to say it, Maru . Come on John, you know that one of the reasons for the bill of rights, perhaps the preeminent reason, was to protect people that might otherwise be excluded by the majority. That's what separation of church and state is all about. But aren't you the first person to also mention that the First Amendment also protects unpopular, offensive, and exclusionary speech Thus, why is the VFW's speech restricted in this case Like I said, I don't think you said that right when you appealed to a Constitutional prohibition on exclusionary and offensive speech. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
Slate's most excellent Dahlia Lithwick had a great article yesterday explaining why in fact that US Supreme Court decision was not ducking the issue, but in fact made the correct decision: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102381/ Even if you believe the words under God violate the Constitution, as I door at least violate the court's line of cases in this area, as does Clarence Thomasit's reasonable to say that Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow just wasn't the right case to test that proposition. Too many other things were at stake. You can call them technicalities. I like to call them children. Ask a divorced or unmarried parent with primary custody of a child what was at stake in this case, and you'll get an answer that differs profoundly from the headlines: The lawyer's trick here came from Michael Newdow, who wanted to override the religious decisions made by his daughter's mother. (The two never married.) Allocating the duties and obligations of custodial and noncustodial parents has always been the province of state courts. It's a hideous job, and no one should have to do it. But the simple fact is that judges decide on a primary parent, and the other parent can either try to change that arrangement or learn to live with it. Initially, Newdow went for door No. 3. He tried to use a backdoor to force the issue first and only tried to modify the custody agreement later. *** JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
- Original Message - From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional Slate's most excellent Dahlia Lithwick had a great article yesterday explaining why in fact that US Supreme Court decision was not ducking the issue, but in fact made the correct decision: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102381/ Even if you believe the words under God violate the Constitution, as I do-or at least violate the court's line of cases in this area, as does Clarence Thomas-it's reasonable to say that Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow just wasn't the right case to test that proposition. Too many other things were at stake. You can call them technicalities. I like to call them children. Ask a divorced or unmarried parent with primary custody of a child what was at stake in this case, and you'll get an answer that differs profoundly from the headlines: The lawyer's trick here came from Michael Newdow, who wanted to override the religious decisions made by his daughter's mother. (The two never married.) Allocating the duties and obligations of custodial and noncustodial parents has always been the province of state courts. It's a hideous job, and no one should have to do it. But the simple fact is that judges decide on a primary parent, and the other parent can either try to change that arrangement or learn to live with it. Initially, Newdow went for door No. 3. He tried to use a backdoor to force the issue first and only tried to modify the custody agreement later. *** Believe it or not, but I have to agree with John on this account. As a non-custodial parent, my rights, at least in regard to a situation where my Ex and I would differ, are significantly limited. I can think of a situation where I would like to exert some control, but any attempt to do so would be throwing money away and wasting my time and the time of many people. While I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed by this childs father, I'm very surprised the case has gotten this far. I don't believe he has the right to sue on his childs behalf in this particular instance. xponent Law In Texas Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
On 16 Jun 2004, at 1:26 am, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional Slate's most excellent Dahlia Lithwick had a great article yesterday explaining why in fact that US Supreme Court decision was not ducking the issue, but in fact made the correct decision: http://slate.msn.com/id/2102381/ Even if you believe the words under God violate the Constitution, as I do-or at least violate the court's line of cases in this area, as does Clarence Thomas-it's reasonable to say that Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow just wasn't the right case to test that proposition. Too many other things were at stake. You can call them technicalities. I like to call them children. Ask a divorced or unmarried parent with primary custody of a child what was at stake in this case, and you'll get an answer that differs profoundly from the headlines: The lawyer's trick here came from Michael Newdow, who wanted to override the religious decisions made by his daughter's mother. (The two never married.) Allocating the duties and obligations of custodial and noncustodial parents has always been the province of state courts. It's a hideous job, and no one should have to do it. But the simple fact is that judges decide on a primary parent, and the other parent can either try to change that arrangement or learn to live with it. Initially, Newdow went for door No. 3. He tried to use a backdoor to force the issue first and only tried to modify the custody agreement later. *** Believe it or not, but I have to agree with John on this account. As a non-custodial parent, my rights, at least in regard to a situation where my Ex and I would differ, are significantly limited. I can think of a situation where I would like to exert some control, but any attempt to do so would be throwing money away and wasting my time and the time of many people. While I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed by this childs father, I'm very surprised the case has gotten this far. I don't believe he has the right to sue on his childs behalf in this particular instance. If this was the only similar case in the pipeline then fair enough. But with such an egregious violation that seems surprising. Again, if it was the only such case, fair enough. But otherwise why pick this one which can be eliminated on a technicality? Presumably any other similar action now has to start all over again... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
JDG wrote: Come on John, you know that one of the reasons for the bill of rights, perhaps the preeminent reason, was to protect people that might otherwise be excluded by the majority. That's what separation of church and state is all about. But aren't you the first person to also mention that the First Amendment also protects unpopular, offensive, and exclusionary speech Thus, why is the VFW's speech restricted in this case Like I said, I don't think you said that right when you appealed to a Constitutional prohibition on exclusionary and offensive speech. Because it is on U.S. Government property it isn't the VFW's speech that is in question. Because it is on U.S. government property is the U.S. Government's speech. The VFW doesn't figure at all in the decision, their involvement is completely, totally irrelevant. -- Doug Repeat after me: Separation of Church and State Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
William wrote: If this was the only similar case in the pipeline then fair enough. But with such an egregious violation that seems surprising. Again, if it was the only such case, fair enough. But otherwise why pick this one which can be eliminated on a technicality? Presumably any other similar action now has to start all over again... I don't believe there are other cases in the pipeline, but feelers are out for a test case. Upon further reflection, I don't actually disagree with the gist of the article theat John posted, or with the several other reasons that this wasn't the right test case. Another good reason discussed in a Washington Post article I believe, was that this case didn't really percolate through the system the way most Supreme Court cases do and as such hasn't really been discussed thoroughly. Another reason is that an awful lot of Americans just don't get separation of church and state and are aghast at the idea that the government shouldn't be able to endorse religion. It might be easier to live with the pledge and other minor violations than it would be to live with the backlash caused by banning them. For the time being anyway. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
At 09:36 PM 6/15/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: Because it is on U.S. Government property it isn't the VFW's speech that is in question. Because it is on U.S. government property is the U.S. Government's speech. The VFW doesn't figure at all in the decision, their involvement is completely, totally irrelevant. So, in other words, if the VFW wanted to burn an American Flag in Mojave National Preserve, everyone here would be all for it JDG - Presuming of course that the NPS permits fires in Mojave. ;-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 11:51 PM Subject: Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional At 09:36 PM 6/15/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: Because it is on U.S. Government property it isn't the VFW's speech that is in question. Because it is on U.S. government property is the U.S. Government's speech. The VFW doesn't figure at all in the decision, their involvement is completely, totally irrelevant. So, in other words, if the VFW wanted to burn an American Flag in Mojave National Preserve, everyone here would be all for it JDG - Presuming of course that the NPS permits fires in Mojave. ;-) The VFW often burns flags John. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
At 09:56 PM 6/15/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: Another reason is that an awful lot of Americans just don't get separation of church and state and are aghast at the idea that the government shouldn't be able to endorse religion. In large part that probably has to do with the fact that the actual standard in the Constitution is much lower than separation, it is simply non-establishment. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
JDG wrote: At 09:36 PM 6/15/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: Because it is on U.S. Government property it isn't the VFW's speech that is in question. Because it is on U.S. government property is the U.S. Government's speech. The VFW doesn't figure at all in the decision, their involvement is completely, totally irrelevant. So, in other words, if the VFW wanted to burn an American Flag in Mojave National Preserve, everyone here would be all for it JDG - Presuming of course that the NPS permits fires in Mojave. ;-) Sorry, I don't understand the relevence of your statement. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
At 12:09 AM 6/16/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: The VFW often burns flags John. :-) You caught me! Still, even if the VFW were unceremoniously burning flags in Mojave, I think that they'd probably have a lot more support on Brin-L than they have received for memorializing our First World War dead. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
At 10:16 PM 6/15/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: JDG wrote: At 09:36 PM 6/15/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: Because it is on U.S. Government property it isn't the VFW's speech that is in question. Because it is on U.S. government property is the U.S. Government's speech. The VFW doesn't figure at all in the decision, their involvement is completely, totally irrelevant. So, in other words, if the VFW wanted to burn an American Flag in Mojave National Preserve, everyone here would be all for it JDG - Presuming of course that the NPS permits fires in Mojave. ;-) Sorry, I don't understand the relevence of your statement. You have stated that you believe the VFW is Constitutionall prohibited because it is, quote, exclusionary and offensive. 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. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 01:17:32 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:09 AM 6/16/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: The VFW often burns flags John. :-) You caught me! Still, even if the VFW were unceremoniously burning flags in Mojave, I think that they'd probably have a lot more support on Brin-L than they have received for memorializing our First World War dead. Once again, you completely miss the point. They can memorialize all they want providing that they don't use religious symbols to do so. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
iaamoac wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26255-2004Jun8.html The ACLU is at it again, ruling that crosses may not be used as Memorials to our war dead on Federal Land. According to the logic of this ruling, at minimum the US cemetary in Normandy is unconstitutional, and very arguably the headstones at Arlington are also unconstitutional. Hm. Then maybe my great-uncle's insistance that his headstone in the military cemetary he's buried in bear a caduceus and not a cross was a good thing. (He served as a doctor in WWII, he was eligible for burial at a military cemetary, and he was emphatically not a Christian, nor a member of any other organized religion.) Or, as someone suggested, does the option of using a symbol other than a cross make the *choice* of using a cross OK? And what, if anything, does the ACLU have to say about the white crosses at roadside spots where people were killed in automobile accidents? I know there would be a lot of angry people if they tried to have those banned. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
But wait, there's more..the latest Church-and-State silliness is arguing that helping kids get a good education will establish religion in the United States http://tinyurl.com/2db5s Sigh. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
Julia wrote: And what, if anything, does the ACLU have to say about the white crosses at roadside spots where people were killed in automobile accidents? I know there would be a lot of angry people if they tried to have those banned. I think the gist of the decision is summarized in this quote from the article: 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. The roadside monuments are highly individual and beyond that they are relatively temporary. The use of a cross to honor war veterans is exclusionary and as such, offensive. Same with the pledge. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
At 08:56 PM 6/14/2004 -0700 Doug Pensinger wrote: The roadside monuments are highly individual and beyond that they are relatively temporary. The use of a cross to honor war veterans is exclusionary and as such, offensive. I don't think you said that right. I am unaware of any Constitutional provision against exclusionary and offensive speech on federal lands. JDG - Something about defending your right to say it, Maru . ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
JDG wrote: I don't think you said that right. I am unaware of any Constitutional provision against exclusionary and offensive speech on federal lands. JDG - Something about defending your right to say it, Maru . Come on John, you know that one of the reasons for the bill of rights, perhaps the preeminent reason, was to protect people that might otherwise be excluded by the majority. That's what separation of church and state is all about. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
