The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: twyacht on August 18, 2010, 05:59:58 PM
-
Tell me that argument of No activist judges?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0818/Roadside-crosses-for-fallen-Utah-police-unconstitutional-court-rules
Roadside crosses for fallen Utah police unconstitutional, court rules
The 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that 12-foot-high crosses honoring fallen members of the Utah Highway Patrol effectively endorse Christianity – and violate the separation of church and state – by going beyond the 'more humble spirit of small roadside crosses.'
By Warren Richey, Staff writer / August 18, 2010
Washington
A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that roadside crosses erected to memorialize fallen Utah Highway Patrol officers violate the First Amendment’s prohibition of government endorsement of religion.
The Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the 12-foot-high crosses bearing the name and badge number of deceased officers sent an unconstitutional religious message to motorists on the state’s highways.
“We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion. They therefore violate the establishment clause of the federal constitution,” the appeals court said in a 35-page decision.
Proponents of strict separation between church and state immediately praised the decision.
“This is an important victory,” said David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association. “Governmental endorsement of Christianity, even in the form of an officer’s memorial, isn’t appropriate on our public highways.”
He added, “There are other ways to honor fallen officers, and the court’s recognition of this certainly strengthens secular government.”
13 crosses on Utah highways
Since 1998, two members of the Utah Highway Patrol Association have organized the placement of monuments on Utah roadsides to honor fallen troopers. Before erecting each memorial, the group consults the family of the fallen trooper about the potential of erecting a memorial in the form of a large cross. No family has objected to the cross or requested a different symbol.
Currently, 13 crosses are displayed along Utah highways. They include a photo of the fallen trooper, the year of death, and biographical information. They also display the insignia of the highway patrol.
American Atheists, Inc., objected to the crosses being displayed on public land and sued to have them removed.
A federal judge threw the lawsuit out. On Wednesday, the appeals court reversed that decision, agreeing with the atheist group that the crosses violate the separation of church and state.
Supporters of the cross memorials argued that they are no different than the crosses in military cemeteries or those used in other roadside memorials marking the site of traffic fatalities.
The appeals court judges disagreed. They said the critical issue was how the large white crosses on public land would be perceived by motorists and others. “We conclude that the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity,” they said. “The memorials use the preeminent symbol of Christianity.”
Qualms over crosses' 'massive size'
While most roadside memorials marking traffic fatalities are 12 to 16 inches high, the troopers’ crosses are 10 times that size, the court said. “The massive size of the crosses displayed on … public property unmistakably conveys a message of endorsement, proselytization, and aggrandizement of religion that is far different from the more humble spirit of small roadside crosses,” the court said.
The judges said they were also concerned that the memorials included the insignia of the Utah Highway Patrol. They said the combination of the cross and insignia links the state with a particular religious symbol. And that, they said, “may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP – both in their hiring practices and, more generally, in the treatment that people may expect to receive on Utah’s highways.”
The judges added: “The reasonable observer’s fear of unequal treatment would likely be compounded by the fact that these memorials carry the same symbol that appears on UHP patrol vehicles.”
The decision notes that most residents of Utah were raised as or are followers of the Mormon religion, which does not view the cross as a religious symbol. The judges noted that “cross-revering Christians comprise approximately 18 percent of the population of Utah.”
But they went on to stress that the state could still violate the establishment clause by promoting the cross and the religious groups that do revere it.
*****
Simply unreal.... >:(
-
Unreal? A 12 foot high cross? C'mon there are other ways to do this. You have to admit that this was pushing it.
FQ13
-
Unreal? A 12 foot high cross? C'mon there are other ways to do this. You have to admit that this was pushing it.
FQ13
Who's really offended FQ? The 1/10 of 1% American Athiests?
Our gov't and courts are not following the "will of the people", time and time again, issue after issue, Nativity Scenes on Town Hall properties, etc,...et,...al...
Would those crosses make your first thought be, "Tragic loss of Troopers, God Bless Them & Their Families for their sacrifice"?
OR
How dare they put up a cross that "big" on a highway? Geez, I am so offended....I need counseling...
C'mon FQ, I thought you'd be smarter than that.
-
Who's really offended FQ? The 1/10 of 1% American Athiests?
Our gov't and courts are not following the "will of the people", time and time again, issue after issue, Nativity Scenes on Town Hall properties, etc,...et,...al...
Would those crosses make your first thought be, "Tragic loss of Troopers, God Bless Them & Their Families for their sacrifice"?
OR
How dare they put up a cross that "big" on a highway? Geez, I am so offended....I need counseling...
C'mon FQ, I thought you'd be smarter than that.
Not the point. Its not about you vs the easily offended (although you seem to be easily offended here). Its about the fact that government should not be endorsing any religion. Hell, would a jewish trooper want a 12 foot cross? What about one who never saw a church outside of a funeral or wedding? It isn't even about them. We shouldn't be doing this, the Constitution says so in the Establishment Clause and we all agree with that principle, "no official religion". We seem to agree that religion should be a private matter and no business of the government, pro or con. All of us that is, except for some right wing fundamentalist yahoos who seem to be unsatisified if we don't publically declare this a Christian nation. Funny thing is, most of them don't think the Mormons erecting those crosses really are Christians. They'll back them in this fight, but still think they're going to hell. ::)
FQ13
PS The easily offended Atheists who have a coniption fit at a gradution prayer or the pledge also fit the yahoo category. I'm an equal opportunity basher here. Basically, keep the government out of religion, but don't have a hernia about a creche or a baccalaureate either.
-
Seems to me if they are planning on erecting a similar monument to fallen officers of faiths other than Christian using the symbol of that faith, they are not favoring one religion over another....and I am a strong supporter of the separation of church and state.
The article said the families were consulted and none objected to the cross, but it left a feeling that there may have been an officer of a non-Christian faith. If the family was not offered the substitution of that religion's symbol for the cross, there may be concern. The family may have been picking the only monument that was available to honor their fallen family member.
-
Somehow FQ for all your brilliant analysis, what part of "In God We Trust" keeps leaving your cerebral matter. This country, was "endowed By It's Creator" , what part of that do you miss? Not for the mamby-pamby whiners, but for those that actually sacrificed.
The PC has reached terminal velocity. How many Founding Documents do I have to quote a "Divine Influence"???
This countries panties get in a wad over things our Grandparents would have backhanded us for.
The 10th Circuit, and other activist "revisionist" judicial activists, seem to keep missing that.
-
Read the whole thread, Solus is right, 12 feet might be a bit large, ...
-
Read the whole thread, Solus is right, 12 feet might be a bit large, ...
Get Over It....
Would a 12 ft. Cross be "too big" for a dead soldier? Perhaps 8'6" should be remanded to Congressional Review for maximum allowance for roadside allotment for the "fallen"
Sound like B.S. yet?
-
Actually, yes I think 12 feet might be to much for any Memorial,
That's almost as tall as an overpass, seems a bit much.
How tall are the crosses at Arlington ?
Agree about the Court decision being BS.
-
Circumsizing the size of a monument/tribute based on an individual States tribute to Highway Patrol Officers that have died in the line of duty, is B.S.
If I want to pay tribute to a fallen soldier, LEO, Veteran, freakin Elvis, who's to say,...."That's too big, it might offend someone"
Please. Our Grandfather's would have slapped us by now.
-
Circumsizing the size of a monument/tribute based on an individual States tribute to Highway Patrol Officers that have died in the line of duty, is B.S.
If I want to pay tribute to a fallen soldier, LEO, Veteran, freakin Elvis, who's to say,...."That's too big, it might offend someone"
Please. Our Grandfather's would have slapped us by now.
Hell with offending any one, I'm thinking of moving the parts into place
Seriously, I haven't seen any photo's, but it just seems more like a bill board than a thoughtful memorial.
I'm not arguing about the rightness of the memorial, I'm just leery of the actual design itself.
PS Circumscribe ::)
-
Tom I think you make a point, compared to a Johnny Walker Red Floozy, on a 50' billboard compared to a 12' high cross, here in Texas we have a 20' high likeness of Quannah Parker, I am not offended, it is meant to catch the eye of the people on the road driving by. And is Texas history, the actual story is much smaller, brass plaque, about 4' high with the story. Honoring our fallen is an honor, I see no offense in it, could it be smaller yes, could it be bigger, YES, like the Christ of the Ozarks in Arkansas.
-
Tw
It was our grandfathers that wrote the 1A, with the Establishment clause. It wasn't imposed on us. What part of this bothers you? Honestly this is one of these debates that leaves me mystified. The Christians shouldn't be offended that the government can't build religious monuments. The athists shouldn't be bothered that non-governmental officials want to say a prayer at a foot ball game or graduation. What part of accepting this deviates from simple good manners and commonsense?
FQ13
-
[quote author=tombogan03884 link=topic=13733.msg177313#msg177313 date=1282183083
Hell with offending any one, I'm thinking of moving the parts into place
Seriously, I haven't seen any photo's, but it just seems more like a bill board than a thoughtful memorial.
I'm not arguing about the rightness of the memorial, I'm just leery of the actual design itself.
PS Circumscribe ::)
[/quote]
Heard that Thomas Jefferson, despite his faults, used to attend mass ceremonies IN THE CAPITAL BLDG! Rode his horse, through fair and foul weather to attend.
For those that wish to return our country to it's original intention proposed by our Founders, this would seem a moot point. A states tribute(s) to fallen Troopers, offends no one.
"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know where it is today."
"In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me light and strength."
Robert E. Lee
"I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth."
William F. Buckley Jr.
-
Tw
It was our grandfathers that wrote the 1A, with the Establishment clause. It wasn't imposed on us. What part of this bothers you? Honestly this is one of these debates that leaves me mystified. The Christians shouldn't be offended that the government can't build religious monuments. The athists shouldn't be bothered that non-governmental officials want to say a prayer at a foot ball game or graduation. What part of accepting this deviates from simple good manners and commonsense?
FQ13
The same manners that would not have a Shinto shrine built at the Pearl Harbor Memorial, the same manners that allowed a Nativity Scene on the Town Hall Steps, along with the Minora, and whatever else if they were so inclined.
Ya' know what? the towns I lived in didn't give a crap. Tribute is tribute, to the fallen, to our country, to God Almighty, so what? If it's not for you, so be it. I'm not imposing it on anyone. I'm remembering the fallen, saying a simple prayer for our country, and not thrusting anything on anybody.
This has become a problem?
Our Grandparents are telling us to stop the stupid sh**, focus on what being an American means, and quit freakin whining.
Get a job, even if you don't like it, suck it up, walk it off, and HTFU.
They are the greatest generation for a reason.
-
The same manners that would not have a Shinto shrine built at the Pearl Harbor Memorial, the same manners that allowed a Nativity Scene on the Town Hall Steps, along with the Minora, and whatever else if they were so inclined.
Ya' know what? the towns I lived in didn't give a crap. Tribute is tribute, to the fallen, to our country, to God Almighty, so what? If it's not for you, so be it. I'm not imposing it on anyone. I'm remembering the fallen, saying a simple prayer for our country, and not thrusting anything on anybody.
This has become a problem?
Our Grandparents are telling us to stop the stupid sh**, focus on what being an American means, and quit freakin whining.
Get a job, even if you don't like it, suck it up, walk it off, and HTFU.
They are the greatest generation for a reason.
Here we agree. with this proviso. Never be ostentacious. A troopers cross, if a cross it shall be? The same size as every other, maybe just painted gold or blue. Its the twelve foot monster, bigger than the original, that I have issues with. Why? Because I don't think its about that dead trooper at all. I think its about sending a different message. So, let the sheep dogs lie among the sheep, noted by color or reasonable size, but don't make them a political issue, which is what is happening here on both sides. Its not right either way. We shouldn't even be debating this. Folks of good will in Utah should have settled it.
FQ13
-
but don't make them a political issue, which is what is happening here on both sides. Its not right either way.
+1 FQ, somehow, when the nuances of our gov't, and other Code Pink, American Athiest, groups, in the minority get involved, it's time to say shut up, focus on a bigger issue, drive by, and move on.
Bigger things to worry about than big crosses on a highway.
How's that hope & change workin"??? ::)
-
but don't make them a political issue, which is what is happening here on both sides. Its not right either way.
+1 FQ, somehow, when the nuances of our gov't, and other Code Pink, American Athiest, groups, in the minority get involved, it's time to say shut up, focus on a bigger issue, drive by, and move on.
Bigger things to worry about than big crosses on a highway.
How's that hope & change workin"??? ::)
Lets take inventory shall we?
Economy FUBARED? check.
Underemployed? Check.
World still on fire? Check.
Diplomatic posture changed from a wannabe Reagan to a wannabe Carter? Check.
Do I still hope for a change? Check.
So, pretty much the usual. SNAFU. Is it 2012 yet? Please?
FQ13 :-[
-
Jeez, I just questioned whether the design was in reasonably good taste , and I seem to have started WWIII.
FQ, you are wrong about the 1st A, it was never intended to stop school prayer, or boot the Nativity scene off the Town Common.
It was intended to keep the Catholic Church,out of Our Govt.
-
Jeez, I just questioned whether the design was in reasonably good taste , and I seem to have started WWIII.
FQ, you are wrong about the 1st A, it was never intended to stop school prayer, or boot the Nativity scene off the Town Common.
It was intended to keep the Catholic Church,out of Our Govt.
Actually, it was the Anglicans and the Congrationalists. Here's the really funny part of this whole absurd debate. The Baptists, champions of state endorsed religion now? They were oppressed by the Puritans (Congregationalists) in New England. So were the Quakers and the Catholics. The Anglicans tried to make the COE the official religion in the South. So I find it strange that 200 odd years later, the people my grand parents tried to oppress in the name of religion, name me apostate for stopping them from doing the same thing to others that my ancestors did to theirs. Folks need to read their history.
FQ13
-
You know what 12' is along an interstate or even a country back road? Nothing!!
Think of all of the homemade signs using a sheet of plywood (4'x8') you've seen as you drove along, and you thought to yourself - wow, I wish they would have used a few of those plywood sheets so I could actually read what they wrote! These crosses are only 4' taller than the sheets of plywood. At any kind of speed, that is nothing.
This case is another example of the statists and lefties using our own laws to destroy the very foundation of this country. Whether it was the Catholics or the Anglicans or Congregationalists the first part of the clause applied to, what ever happened to the second part - the part about not prohibiting the free expression thereof (of religion)? That would seem to allow anyone - gummint included - to do things like this.
If the Utah troopers were Christian, the cross is appropriate. If you should happen to run across any Jewish Utah state troopers who died in the line of duty (good luck on that one!), put up a Star of David. A mooslim one? (even more doubtful), Put up a Crescent or a picture of Mohammed. Fine by me.
BTW, did bho's publicly funded Ramadan dinner recently - the one where he said that mooslims have contributed greatly to the development of America (other than remodeling lower Manhattan, anyone else think of their "contributions?) - violate the 1A? How is that different from the crosses - the US gummint paid for that dinner using US Taxpayer monies on US gummint property.
-
This case is another example of the statists and lefties using our own laws to destroy the very foundation of this country. Whether it was the Catholics or the Anglicans or Congregationalists the first part of the clause applied to, what ever happened to the second part - the part about not prohibiting the free expression thereof (of religion)? That would seem to allow anyone - gummint included - to do things like this.
Here's where we disagree. The free expression clause applies to people not the state. People have rights. The government only has duties.. To give the government a "right', which is to say a perfect claim to moral authority, is not only contrary to the idea of natural law, but dangerous. Look, I don't really care about giant crosses, and it sure doesn't hurt this Christian's feelings. I just think my church should be building them, not the government. I hope folks understand me when I say that. Its not a left wing anti-god view point, just a "keep government out of my relationship with God" point of view.
FQ13
-
You know what 12' is along an interstate or even a country back road? Nothing!!
Think of all of the homemade signs using a sheet of plywood (4'x8') you've seen as you drove along, and you thought to yourself - wow, I wish they would have used a few of those plywood sheets so I could actually read what they wrote! These crosses are only 4' taller than the sheets of plywood. At any kind of speed, that is nothing.
This case is another example of the statists and lefties using our own laws to destroy the very foundation of this country. Whether it was the Catholics or the Anglicans or Congregationalists the first part of the clause applied to, what ever happened to the second part - the part about not prohibiting the free expression thereof (of religion)? That would seem to allow anyone - gummint included - to do things like this.
If the Utah troopers were Christian, the cross is appropriate. If you should happen to run across any Jewish Utah state troopers who died in the line of duty (good luck on that one!), put up a Star of David. A mooslim one? (even more doubtful), Put up a Crescent or a picture of Mohammed. Fine by me.
BTW, did bho's publicly funded Ramadan dinner recently - the one where he said that mooslims have contributed greatly to the development of America (other than remodeling lower Manhattan, anyone else think of their "contributions?) - violate the 1A? How is that different from the crosses - the US gummint paid for that dinner using US Taxpayer monies on US gummint property.
Can't agree with the gummint part of that. If a member of the government wants to express his religious believes as an individual, they should be free do do so, but not as part of the office or position they hold. Nor should the government spend money or resources in a way that favors one religion over another. And, yes, the Ramadan dinner fails the test and should not have been held...unless there are plans to host a dinner for every other religion with believers in the US, a plan I don't think it practical if possible at all.
I agree that as far as the 1A, the size of the cross should not be an issue. They could make the cross so big it straddled the road way and and was driven through. Or even larger, requiring a lighted tunnel to drive through it. This is a matter of taste. Of course if the government is paying for the monuments, there is also a cost factor.
-
BTW, did bho's publicly funded Ramadan dinner recently - the one where he said that mooslims have contributed greatly to the development of America (other than remodeling lower Manhattan, anyone else think of their "contributions?) - violate the 1A? How is that different from the crosses - the US gummint paid for that dinner using US Taxpayer monies on US gummint property.
Good question.
-
BTW, did bho's publicly funded Ramadan dinner recently - the one where he said that mooslims have contributed greatly to the development of America (other than remodeling lower Manhattan, anyone else think of their "contributions?) - violate the 1A? How is that different from the crosses - the US gummint paid for that dinner using US Taxpayer monies on US gummint property.
An excellent question. Care to weigh in on this one, professor?
-
An excellent question. Care to weigh in on this one, professor?
They sold us the slaves. (And gee, that hasn't caused any trouble).
FQ13 ;D
-
FQ:
"I hope folks understand me when I say that. Its not a left wing anti-god view point, just a "keep government out of my relationship with God" point of view."
OK, than.
Than why does every Congressional Session open with,.......wait for it,...........PRAYER!. Not a Jewish prayer, Muslim prayer, Hindu, Shinto, or Buddhist....
A Judeo-Christian Prayer. :o During Jefferson's time in office the Capitol Bldg. held Mass. Our money still says "In God We Trust".
The Pew Research has a poll out today, with more people thinking BHO is Muslim, and more folks not even sure if he is a religious person to begin with.
Either way, to the OP, the sentiment and wishes of a MINORITY, is coming through our court system effecting the MAJORITY of this country, who are of some form of Christians. It's not Christmas Vacation anymore, .....it's Winter Holiday.....
Please... :'(
There is a Greek Orthodox Church, that was destroyed when the North Tower collapsed. The minister has been "begging, pleading, and asking for the permits to rebuild."
The NY zoning board, Port Authority, etc,....have not granted him a permit to rebuild.....After almost 10 years!!!!
But a mosque can be fast-tracked????
Activist liberal judges, are doing the same thing. The 9th Circus has been overturned more than any other court. The 10th is right behind them...
Remember the Mojave Cross Case? Put there 70 years ago by the VFW, for the WWI soldiers?
Really rather pathetic, and embarrassing.
-
FQ:
"I hope folks understand me when I say that. Its not a left wing anti-god view point, just a "keep government out of my relationship with God" point of view."
I was speaking for myself TW, not the courts.
FQ13
PS The reason the Ninth Circuit is most often overruled is because it is by far the largest circuit. It covers 9 states, Guam, The Mariannas and innumerable reservations. Its not like they are super liberal or stupid. They just hear a lot more cases.
-
Its not like they are super liberal or stupid. They just hear a lot more cases.
I can't believe that YOU can post that with a straight face...
The court’s biggest push to the left came in the 1970s, when President Carter was able to appoint 15 judges, thanks in part to Congressional expansion of the judicial rolls. “Carter appointed some of the most liberal judges ever, to any court,” said Alex Kozinski, now the chief judge of the circuit and an appointee of Ronald Reagan.
That Democratic bulge in the court means that even today, when most of the circuits’ majorities are made up of Republican appointees, 58 percent of the Ninth’s active judges came from Democratic administrations.
Those who criticize the court say the best evidence for their argument is the Supreme Court, which overturns the decisions of the Ninth more often than those of any other circuit. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in Washington, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth 14 times of the 16 cases in the 2008-2009 term — an 88 percent reversal rate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html
Uh, put the Kool-Aid down FQ, your cut-off.......notice the link?????? It's uh, the NY Times,,....hardly a Conservative biased group....
Google "Most Liberal Circuit Court"....
After the first 20 pgs. that all "hit" on the 9th Circus, let me know... :P
What do they put in the water in Palm Beach, that goes in your Kool-Aid???? Thanks FQ, that is a classic post... ::)
-
Its not like they are super liberal or stupid. They just hear a lot more cases.
I can't believe that YOU can post that with a straight face...
The court’s biggest push to the left came in the 1970s, when President Carter was able to appoint 15 judges, thanks in part to Congressional expansion of the judicial rolls. “Carter appointed some of the most liberal judges ever, to any court,” said Alex Kozinski, now the chief judge of the circuit and an appointee of Ronald Reagan.
That Democratic bulge in the court means that even today, when most of the circuits’ majorities are made up of Republican appointees, 58 percent of the Ninth’s active judges came from Democratic administrations.
Those who criticize the court say the best evidence for their argument is the Supreme Court, which overturns the decisions of the Ninth more often than those of any other circuit. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in Washington, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth 14 times of the 16 cases in the 2008-2009 term — an 88 percent reversal rate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html
Uh, put the Kool-Aid down FQ, your cut-off.......notice the link?????? It's uh, the NY Times,,....hardly a Conservative biased group....
Google "Most Liberal Circuit Court"....
After the first 20 pgs. that all "hit" on the 9th Circus, let me know... :P
What do they put in the water in Palm Beach, that goes in your Kool-Aid???? Thanks FQ, that is a classic post... ::)
Again TW, look where they are. I'm not saying they aren't liberal. They are, just like fourth circuit is conservative. Just like the 4th draws from the deep South, the 9th draws from Ca., oregon and Washington. You've got everything from LA to Seattle on that court. The point of the post was much smaller. More cases=more opinions being overturned. Nothing more.
FQ13
-
What do they put in the water in Palm Beach, that goes in your Kool-Aid???
The fermented urine of the late Teddy Kennedy.......
-
Your contradicting yourself FQ,
"More opinions=More cases being overturned" ??? C'mon even you can see through bong smoke, Birkenstock wearin', cootie scratchin, BS.... :P
Like Luke Skywalker told Papa Darth, "I sense the conflict within you, let go of your,.................."inner Liberal"..... ;D
*edited by tw, who still fights the Dark Side, except when I hold my Glock21.... ;)
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
This is SO funny! LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Again TW, look where they are. I'm not saying they aren't liberal. They are, just like fourth circuit is conservative. Just like the 4th draws from the deep South, the 9th draws from Ca., oregon and Washington. You've got everything from LA to Seattle on that court. The point of the post was much smaller. More cases=more opinions being overturned. Nothing more.
FQ13
What about the percentage of cases overturned? It's not just the volume of cases they hear.
-
The fermented urine of the late Teddy Kennedy.......
Sadly, thats literally true. The Kennedy's had a "compound' in Palm Beach and there was a bomb shelter built for JFK on Peanut Island. Given how many times Teddy probably pissed in the rose bushs, I probably have. Yech!!!!! :P :P :P
FQ13 who is trying very hard to pretend that Rush, Anne Coulter and Trump don't live here too. Thanks Timothy. I meann it. Jerk! ;D
-
My pleasure Professor...who doesn't remember the story of the Uncle and the Nephew of Palm Beach....
-
My pleasure Professor...who doesn't remember the story of the Uncle and the Nephew of Palm Beach....
Damnit! Thats mean! They had the lawn redone! Thre is no, repeat NO,NONE, ZERO trace of that anywhere! Jerk! ;D
FQ13, who does a full body shudder and who is drinking nothing but bottled water from here on. >:(
-
Damnit! Thats mean! They had the lawn redone! Thre is no, repeat NO,NONE, ZERO trace of that anywhere! Jerk! ;D
FQ13, who does a full body shudder and who is drinking nothing but bottled water from here on. >:(
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I Love It When A Plan Comes Together.... ;)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Here's where we disagree. The free expression clause applies to people not the state. People have rights. The government only has duties.. To give the government a "right', which is to say a perfect claim to moral authority, is not only contrary to the idea of natural law, but dangerous. Look, I don't really care about giant crosses, and it sure doesn't hurt this Christian's feelings. I just think my church should be building them, not the government. I hope folks understand me when I say that. Its not a left wing anti-god view point, just a "keep government out of my relationship with God" point of view.
FQ13
Illiterate in how many languages now? And this is wrong - gummints have powers, those powers carry duties.
The First Amendment says in part - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - this is hardly the language of recognizing a right of the people, it is a limit on the power of Congress. And taken to the extreme, the second part of the clause indicates that the free expression of religion can also not be abridged by any law - or judicial ruling.
It has been only in the recent memory that the whole "separation of church and state" nonsense really brewed up, and the second clause was ignored in favor of the first. Hell, I remember my public schools shutting down around 2PM on Thursdays and almost all of the kids skeedadling off to their respective churches for Thursday School. No one raised a stink, and anyone who did not want to go to church stayed at school and had a study hall.
Both apply, and the second part permits bho's Ramadan dinner on state property as well as the crosses along the Utah highway. It's time we start understanding both parts.
-
Illiterate in how many languages now? And this is wrong - gummints have powers, those powers carry duties.
The First Amendment says in part - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." - this is hardly the language of recognizing a right of the people, it is a limit on the power of Congress. And taken to the extreme, the second part of the clause indicates that the free expression of religion can also not be abridged by any law - or judicial ruling.
It has been only in the recent memory that the whole "separation of church and state" nonsense really brewed up, and the second clause was ignored in favor of the first. Hell, I remember my public schools shutting down around 2PM on Thursdays and almost all of the kids skeedadling off to their respective churches for Thursday School. No one raised a stink, and anyone who did not want to go to church stayed at school and had a study hall.
Both apply, and the second part permits bho's Ramadan dinner on state property as well as the crosses along the Utah highway. It's time we start understanding both parts.
If your interpretation is correct, Path, then it would be ok for the government to make massive donations to the Muslim Faith as it's free expression of the religion of it's choosing?
-
If your interpretation is correct, Path, then it would be ok for the government to make massive donations to the Muslim Faith as it's free expression of the religion of it's choosing?
I didn't say it was a perfect interpretation! ;)