Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/17/2005 8:25:07 AM EDT

"Aug. 16, 2005: Kathy Brewer, 42, replaces some of the crosses near President Bush's ranch outside Crawford, Texas, after they were mowed down."

All of these CROSSES on PUBLIC land in Texas. Why hasn't the ACLU tried to stop this horror?
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 8:28:04 AM EDT
What do you expect them to do?

The ACLU loves the cross. They know we hold it near and dear, any thing that can be done with it to make us mad.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 9:09:56 AM EDT
Well, these crosses are being used in a protest against a Republican President, so it's okay.

However, if those crosses were in a cemetary, honoring fallen soliders, there would be a lawsuit crying 'seperation of church and state' (what ever that means.....)
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 7:21:05 AM EDT
Wonder if they'd stand up for the guy who ran them over?
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 7:23:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
Wonder if they'd stand up for the guy who ran them over?



Only if it were a church that erected them, or god forbid an elected official.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 7:39:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
www.foxnews.com/images/173398/5_25_081605_crosses_replaced_450.jpg
"Aug. 16, 2005: Kathy Brewer, 42, replaces some of the crosses near President Bush's ranch outside Crawford, Texas, after they were mowed down."

All of these CROSSES on PUBLIC land in Texas. Why hasn't the ACLU tried to stop this horror?


I am certain there is a county ord that forbids that.
CH
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 7:43:52 AM EDT
In the ACLU's mind ...

Crossess in a political protest = good
Crosses in a urinal = art (Robert Maplethorpe reference)
Crosses in public school = evil
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 7:45:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 7:46:42 AM EDT by WildBoar]
Had they been put up by actual Christians, they would be all over them trying to get them shut down. Imagine a Pro Choice movement doing that? They would be shut down immediately.

Also what makes the woman assume all those who were killed were Christians? What about the fallen of other faiths? What about the fallen who interpret the 2 commandement strictly and do not have crosses?



Also I saw her last night on Fox news.Whats up with teh two hippies that stood behind here wearing BDU shirts complete with patches? Are we to beleive they are vets of the WOT?
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 8:24:17 AM EDT

In the ACLU's mind ...

Crossess in a political protest = good
Crosses in a urinal = art (Robert Maplethorpe reference)
Crosses in public school = evil




here let me translate it better.

Crosses in political protest = 1st admendment free speech
Crosses in a urinial = 1st admendment (see above)
Crosses in public school = Gov't (public school) advocation of a particular religion (in this case christianity)
Which is also a violation of the 1st amendment.

Here is the First Admendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In private catholic schools the cruisifix is predominately displayed legally, why? cause it aint a govt institution. You want crosses in your classroom? Go to private school. How hard is that to understand.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 8:30:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:

In the ACLU's mind ...

Crossess in a political protest = good
Crosses in a urinal = art (Robert Maplethorpe reference)
Crosses in public school = evil




here let me translate it better.

Crosses in political protest = 1st admendment free speech
Crosses in a urinial = 1st admendment (see above)
Crosses in public school = Gov't (public school) advocation of a particular religion (in this case christianity)
Which is also a violation of the 1st amendment.

Here is the First Admendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In private catholic schools the cruisifix is predominately displayed legally, why? cause it aint a govt institution. You want crosses in your classroom? Go to private school. How hard is that to understand.



t-stox, once again you show your ignorance.

There is no where that says that you cannot have religious symbols in public or government spaces.
Show me where it says that it is okay to establish atheism as the religion of the government?
You can't because it doesn't exist.

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.
which meant that congress cannot make it a law requiring people to worship a particular way, or worship at all.

If a school has morning prayers, a student is NOT REQUIRED to participate, but it doesn't mean the you cannot have prayer in school.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 8:41:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:

In the ACLU's mind ...

Crossess in a political protest = good
Crosses in a urinal = art (Robert Maplethorpe reference)
Crosses in public school = evil




here let me translate it better.

Crosses in political protest = 1st admendment free speech
Crosses in a urinial = 1st admendment (see above)
Crosses in public school = Gov't (public school) advocation of a particular religion (in this case christianity)
Which is also a violation of the 1st amendment.

Here is the First Admendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In private catholic schools the cruisifix is predominately displayed legally, why? cause it aint a govt institution. You want crosses in your classroom? Go to private school. How hard is that to understand.



Its when they forbid students to wear a shirt with a cross on it or to wear a cross necklace when its visible. Yes many of your lib educators do enforce that repression.

Anyway, lets say there was a pro choice movement erecting crosses on public land next to a road. Do you think it would get the same respect from liberals as this woman has?
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 8:42:51 AM EDT
Arrggh

Do not get me started on the ACLU.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 8:53:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By t-stox:

In the ACLU's mind ...

Crossess in a political protest = good
Crosses in a urinal = art (Robert Maplethorpe reference)
Crosses in public school = evil




here let me translate it better.

Crosses in political protest = 1st admendment free speech
Crosses in a urinial = 1st admendment (see above)
Crosses in public school = Gov't (public school) advocation of a particular religion (in this case christianity)
Which is also a violation of the 1st amendment.

Here is the First Admendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In private catholic schools the cruisifix is predominately displayed legally, why? cause it aint a govt institution. You want crosses in your classroom? Go to private school. How hard is that to understand.





Hypocrite.

Hey ding dong how about...

Crosses placed ANYWHERE by an individual = 1st Amendment free speech.

Hypocrite.

If these were anti-abortion protestors placing crosses on PUBLIC property you know damn well the ACLU would be screaming.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 8:55:55 AM EDT

To answer your question - since it's not the government doing anything, the ACLU is not really interested. What exactly COULD they do? They cannot exactly SUE Sheehan to remove them, because it's not their land. Do you see my point? The ACLU really couldn't do anything if they wanted (as far as I can tell).


Now, if the government (say local county or state) tried to PROHIBIT the Sheehan kook from putting crosses on public property (i.e. along the road) then it would be very interesting indeed what the ACLU would do. THAT would be fascinating !!!

Would they sue on behalf of Sheehan, in order to protect her 1st amendement right - and creating a precedent that would allow religious people to put crosses on public property anywhere they wanted to ?

It's also interesting because there is already a precedent for "allowing" crosses by the side of the road - where loved ones place them after a traffic accident. I'm sure it's not a legal precedent, but if someone tried to outlaw what Sheehan was doing, then that might prohibit grieving family members from putting up crosses.


I guess it's all a moot point anyway - since she'll be on private property anyway soon.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 8:58:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By t-stox:

In the ACLU's mind ...

Crossess in a political protest = good
Crosses in a urinal = art (Robert Maplethorpe reference)
Crosses in public school = evil




here let me translate it better.

Crosses in political protest = 1st admendment free speech
Crosses in a urinial = 1st admendment (see above)
Crosses in public school = Gov't (public school) advocation of a particular religion (in this case christianity)
Which is also a violation of the 1st amendment.

Here is the First Admendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In private catholic schools the cruisifix is predominately displayed legally, why? cause it aint a govt institution. You want crosses in your classroom? Go to private school. How hard is that to understand.





Hypocrite.

Hey ding dong how about...

Crosses placed ANYWHERE by an individual = 1st Amendment free speech.

Hypocrite.

If these were anti-abortion protestors placing crosses on PUBLIC property you know damn well the ACLU would be screaming.



EXACTLY !!

Crosses placed in a public school, town hall or courthouse (by public officials) falls into a different category than individual citizen's expression, since it carries with it an implicit endoresement of that religion by "government" officials.

Btw - for your information - the ACLU has sued on several occasions to protect the rights of religious protestors to display crosses, slogans, posters, etc - including at abortion clinics.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 8:59:27 AM EDT
She's a hottie.

Link Posted: 8/18/2005 9:51:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
To answer your question - since it's not the government doing anything, the ACLU is not really interested.



Not quite correct. The ACLU fights nativety scenes on public properly even though put there by private individuals.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 10:02:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gopeterson:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
To answer your question - since it's not the government doing anything, the ACLU is not really interested.



Not quite correct. The ACLU fights nativety scenes on public properly even though put there by private individuals.




If you are referring to city hall property, court-houses, and such - then it still makes sense, because if the government ALLOWS private groups or individuals to do so, it still implies government endorsement. For example, if a judge were to allow a privte citizen to put a giant monument of Jesus in front of the local courthouse, but deny a giant statue of Cthulu or Buddha - it would still seem to be "endorsement"

In addition - crosses that are clearly intended as "grave markers" are NEVER anything that the ACLU has objected to (at least to my knowledge) and seem to me to be qualitatively different than a nativity scene, for example.


But - I do see your point. And it would have been a fascinating case. (But, my other point still stands, which is that the ACLU has in the past on occasion gone to court FOR religious protestors to allow them to display religios slogans, pictures etc - on public property in front of abortion clinics)
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 10:03:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
She's a hottie.




Nice set of stems. Maybe she can be reformed.
Top Top