Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
U.S. vs. Trunk
Topic Started: Mar 17 2012, 02:35 PM (907 Views)
somebody else's sock
Middle Aged Carp
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/mar/14/doj-urges-high-court-to-take-soledad-cross-case/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I wonder how much taxpayer money has been spent on this. Whatever the result, any existing monuments should be grandfathered anyway. Do we really want to spend public money to change these things?

How stupid.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Quote:
 
Do we really want to spend public money to change these things?


Yes. What we shouldn't spend money on is defending it in court.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Wrong.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 17 2012, 03:02 PM
Quote:
 
Do we really want to spend public money to change these things?


Yes. What we shouldn't spend money on is defending it in court.
So you are in favor of eradicating cultural monuments? Seems Maoist to me.

I think Holder has it right -- it does need to go to SCOTUS to be settled -- perhaps to end the madness of the ACLU and to defend the patrimony of the society.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Mar 17 2012, 03:02 PM
Quote:
 
Do we really want to spend public money to change these things?


Yes. What we shouldn't spend money on is defending it in court.
+1
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Mar 17 2012, 08:13 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 17 2012, 03:02 PM
Quote:
 
Do we really want to spend public money to change these things?


Yes. What we shouldn't spend money on is defending it in court.
+1
-1=0
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Mar 17 2012, 03:17 PM
So you are in favor of eradicating cultural monuments?
Just the unconstitutional ones.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1hp
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
This fight has been going on forever. I only wonder, if the cross has to come down, what will happen with all the graveyards......staring with Arlington.

Posted Image

Posted Image


Not to mention places such as the Normandy American cemetery, which is managed by the US Government:

Posted Image

Edited by 1hp, Mar 18 2012, 04:12 PM.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 12:50 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 17 2012, 03:17 PM
So you are in favor of eradicating cultural monuments?
Just the unconstitutional ones.
OK, so you're in favor of eradicating cultural monuments. Thanks for acknowledging that.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 09:51 AM
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 12:50 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 17 2012, 03:17 PM
So you are in favor of eradicating cultural monuments?
Just the unconstitutional ones.
OK, so you're in favor of eradicating cultural monuments. Thanks for acknowledging that.
Again, only if they violate the constitution.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
How can a cultural monument violate the Constitution?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
How does calling a cross a 'cultural monument' remove its religious significance?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Are there any actual religious activities associated with the cultural monument?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
So if a soldier was named after John the Baptist or Mother Teresa the name would have to be removed from the grave stone.

OK, that makes sense, GI headstones should only contain serial number. And if the family wants to pay extra the rank could be added.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Should all the culturally historical religious images in the Smithsonian and the National Gallery be destroyed as well? After all, they are "religious symbols on Federal property".

Do you support the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan? It seems like a direct parallel that you place some law above a cultural monument.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 10:51 AM
Are there any actual religious activities associated with the cultural monument?
All sorts of religious things are associated with the cross. I don't think the associations disappear by calling it a 'cultural monument'.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 11:11 AM
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 10:51 AM
Are there any actual religious activities associated with the cultural monument?
All sorts of religious things are associated with the cross. I don't think the associations disappear by calling it a 'cultural monument'.
OK, so you don't know of any specifically religious activities associated with the cross -- is that correct? Just religious "things"? Such as what? Historical and cultural memories of a religious sentiment on the part of those who erected the cross? Is that what you want to eradicate?

What about the religious art at the Cloisters? Should that be eradicated as well -- since they receive government funds and are on government land? Since the Brooklyn Museum is on city owned land, and receives City, State and Federal Funding, should all religious art be removed? Were you against Ofili's Virgin Mary being displayed there since its a religious image sponsored by the State?

I'm just trying to understand your principles here.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Sorry, I didn't realize you were setting such store on the word 'activities', since that is hardly relevant to the constitutional question.

THere are lots of activities people associate with the cross, from signum crucis to the pogroms. Odd for you to be asking me this question.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 11:53 AM
Sorry, I didn't realize you were setting such store on the word 'activities', since that is hardly relevant to the constitutional question.

THere are lots of activities people associate with the cross, from signum crucis to the pogroms. Odd for you to be asking me this question.
Nothing odd about it. The whole basis of "religion" requires some form of activity. You think it should be removed because it violates some idea of government sponsorship of religion, correct? You also claim it cannot be understood in the wider context of a cultural symbol. (Yet, of course, the cross far predates Christianity as a cultural symbol since it is a cosmic symbol comprised of the axis mundi and the path of the sun -- the Roman use of the cross for crucifixion was because it was a symbol of the political and civic order).

So do you think that all religious art should be removed from all museums that get government funding in any manner?

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Is anyone here interested in knowing about the case, or do we prefer to trot out ill-informed opinions? If the latter, just another day on the internets. If the former, here's a blog post by a smart lawyer, which seems pretty even-handed to me.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 12:13 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 11:53 AM
Sorry, I didn't realize you were setting such store on the word 'activities', since that is hardly relevant to the constitutional question.

THere are lots of activities people associate with the cross, from signum crucis to the pogroms. Odd for you to be asking me this question.
Nothing odd about it. The whole basis of "religion" requires some form of activity. You think it should be removed because it violates some idea of government sponsorship of religion, correct? You also claim it cannot be understood in the wider context of a cultural symbol. (Yet, of course, the cross far predates Christianity as a cultural symbol since it is a cosmic symbol comprised of the axis mundi and the path of the sun -- the Roman use of the cross for crucifixion was because it was a symbol of the political and civic order).

So do you think that all religious art should be removed from all museums that get government funding in any manner?

You would not ask this question if you knew anything about the court's decision.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dave Spelvin
Mar 18 2012, 12:14 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 12:13 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 11:53 AM
Sorry, I didn't realize you were setting such store on the word 'activities', since that is hardly relevant to the constitutional question.

THere are lots of activities people associate with the cross, from signum crucis to the pogroms. Odd for you to be asking me this question.
Nothing odd about it. The whole basis of "religion" requires some form of activity. You think it should be removed because it violates some idea of government sponsorship of religion, correct? You also claim it cannot be understood in the wider context of a cultural symbol. (Yet, of course, the cross far predates Christianity as a cultural symbol since it is a cosmic symbol comprised of the axis mundi and the path of the sun -- the Roman use of the cross for crucifixion was because it was a symbol of the political and civic order).

So do you think that all religious art should be removed from all museums that get government funding in any manner?

You would not ask this question if you knew anything about the court's decision.
I'm asking Jon what his principles are. You really need to learn to keep up.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 12:16 PM
Dave Spelvin
Mar 18 2012, 12:14 PM
ivorythumper
Mar 18 2012, 12:13 PM
jon-nyc
Mar 18 2012, 11:53 AM
Sorry, I didn't realize you were setting such store on the word 'activities', since that is hardly relevant to the constitutional question.

THere are lots of activities people associate with the cross, from signum crucis to the pogroms. Odd for you to be asking me this question.
Nothing odd about it. The whole basis of "religion" requires some form of activity. You think it should be removed because it violates some idea of government sponsorship of religion, correct? You also claim it cannot be understood in the wider context of a cultural symbol. (Yet, of course, the cross far predates Christianity as a cultural symbol since it is a cosmic symbol comprised of the axis mundi and the path of the sun -- the Roman use of the cross for crucifixion was because it was a symbol of the political and civic order).

So do you think that all religious art should be removed from all museums that get government funding in any manner?

You would not ask this question if you knew anything about the court's decision.
I'm asking Jon what his principles are. You really need to learn to keep up.
Yes, dear, I'm slow. I thought we were discussing a legal decision that no one in this thread, obviously, was acquainted with. It's OK. Carry on with this frolic of your own.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Dave Spelvin
Mar 18 2012, 12:19 PM

I thought we were discussing a legal decision that no one in this thread, obviously, was acquainted with.

I thought we were discussing jon's opinion that no one in this thread, obviously, was acquainted with.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1