enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Take down the cross...
by Zarasophist

put up a hugh American Flag.

Problem solved.

Re: Take down the cross...
by Zarasophist
That would be "huge". Nothing to do with Hugh Hefner or anything.
Re: Take down the cross...
by bsharporflat
I dunno. Doesn't a huge American flag represent the New York Stock Exchange?
Re: Take down the cross...
by cogitorum

put up a hugh American Flag

that's a solution that's so obvious, and so imbued with common sense, and so incontrovertibly legal . . . that one has to wonder why Congress didn't think of it?

Re: Take down the cross...
by trapdoor
Why take down the cross? It's no longer on public land -- the land was given to private entities.
Re: Take down the cross...
by Bentoniani

Zarasophist, your plan is ingenious.

As Kang said in his debate against Kodos, "abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

Re: Take down the cross...
by Bondsman
Bentoniani:

Zarasophist, your plan is ingenious.

As Kang said in his debate against Kodos, "abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

my favorite was when Sideshow Bob was running for mayor, and when Homer was voting he said, (paraphrased) "well, I don't agree with his Bart killing policy, but otherwise...)

Re: Take down the cross...
by olethros

trapdoor:
Why take down the cross? It's no longer on public land -- the land was given to private entities.

In what even Scalia's wackjob ass admitted was a clear attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause.

Re: Take down the cross...
by trapdoor

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof:"

That's the establishment clause. Please tell me how it has been violated.

Easy
by degsme

Easy

Congress made the law that delegated land mgmt to DoI. QED it delegated establishment capabilities to the DoI. DoI has deeded the land to the VFW

  1. To avoid complying with a court order - dubious in and of itself
  2. on the explicit condition that the VFW MAINTAIN the PREFERRED Religious symbol on that land, otherwise it reverts to the Feds

Clearly the latter is an explicit directive to establish a prefered faith.

Re: Easy
by trapdoor

Oh, Bull, Degs. DoI can't establish a religion -- and displaying a cross doesn't establish a religion in any case.

But that's a moot point as DoI doesn't own the land anymore -- and a cross CAN be displayed on private property. Proving that the land deal violates a court order is going to be difficult if not impossible.

People see establishment where none exists. The Constitution doesn't preserve any right not to see a religious symbol you don't like, anymore than it keeps your neighbor from flying a Nazi flag (or for that matter, nor does it keep the government from flying a Confederate flag over a Confederate cemetery).

DoI is promulgating rules
by degsme

DoI is promulgating rules. Those rules have force of Law derived from Congress. DoI is acting as an arm of Congressional legislation here.

QED anything that the DoI does to establish one religion ahead of others is the same as CONGRESS MAKING LAW that ESTABLISHES one religion ahead of others.

One religion that has State Preference ahead of others IS "establishing a religion" as a state religion.

Its an Am 1 violtion.

But that's a moot point as DoI doesn't own the land anymore -- and a cross CAN be displayed on private property.

But it isn't. It CONTINUES TO BE encumbered by DoI rules that REQUIRE A PREFERED RELIGIOUS SECTs symbol be maintained. Else the "private" property reverts to the DoI.

The Constitution doesn't preserve any right not to see a religious symbol you don't like, anymore than it keeps your neighbor from flying a Nazi flag

I completely agree. BUT it also precludes The Government from pretending that you have freedom of expression if it REQUIRES you to fly that Nazi Flag as well. And in this case the DoI is REQUIRING the VFW to display the symbol of a favoured religion even though it is "private" property.

Re: DoI is promulgating rules
by trapdoor

There is no Amendment I violation: Congress has made no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Neither has DoI. It merely gave away apiece of land, which is is fully authorized to do.

The rules that "encumber" it are merely designed to ensure the display doesn't get ignored and become an eyesore --but you know that and are being intentionally obtuse.

Displaying a religious symbol is not establishing a religion. If it was, all those Greek-temple columns in D.C. would establish that we are worshiping the gods atop Mount Olympus.

Now, if you want my own idea -- the cross was put in place before the current interpretation of the law led to such religious controversies. Make the land public and allow the cross to remain in place -- grandfathered by past practices. Bar the future display of such symbols.

View as RSS news feed in XML