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
t
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.
W
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 feder
- 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
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
> >in
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/
>
>
>*
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
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 t
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
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 dea
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 co
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 th
- 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:
> >Bec
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 complete
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 a
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
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
- 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 yes
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 "unde
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 t
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
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 Constitutio
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 fr
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/listinf
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
> unconsti
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
> unconsti
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
