| 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: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| U.S. vs. Trunk | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 17 2012, 02:35 PM (906 Views) | |
| jon-nyc | Mar 18 2012, 12:25 PM Post #26 |
|
Cheers
|
No it really is odd, a symbol can have religious significance even without being directly associated with 'activities'. (although the cross is associated with 'activities' as well as other things'.
Something like that, though let us not dissect the word 'sponsorship', that was your word not mine.
I suppose the cross erected on Mt. Soledad could be willfully misunderstood that way. Is that what you propose to do? Likewise the swastika on the arms of Aryan Nation fanatics could be willfully misunderstood to mean solidarity with Jainism. But I don't think many would be fooled.
No. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 18 2012, 12:26 PM Post #27 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
You must be addressing Jon then, since he is the one who is advocating that this not advance to the Supreme Court. Do you think that the case law is sufficient to make a dispostive judgment that somehow protects any other religious cultural artifact held on public land? Edited by ivorythumper, Mar 18 2012, 12:28 PM.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Mar 18 2012, 12:27 PM Post #28 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
The solution there is simple: Allow the deceased (or his/her estate) to decide what symbol to put on his/her plot, be it a Christian cross, a Muslim crescent moon, a Jewish six-pointed star, a pagan/Wiccan pentagram, a Buddhist wheel of karma or reverse swastika, a Taoist tai-ji diagram, an atheist whatever ... as long as all believes are honored as directed by the will of the deceased (or his/her estate), there would be no Constitutional issue. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 18 2012, 12:30 PM Post #29 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
1hp -- would you please resize the cemetery photo smaller? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dave Spelvin | Mar 18 2012, 12:37 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Fulla-Carp
|
I'm asking Jon what his principles are. You really need to learn to keep up. [/quote]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.[/quote]You must be addressing Jon then, since he is the one who is advocating that this not advance to the Supreme Court. Do you think that the case law is sufficient to make a dispostive judgment that somehow protects any other religious cultural artifact held on public land? [/quote]OK. Since you will not take the time to learn what the Court had to say, I'll post a few useful bits:
I agree with Turley that this is a very well written opinion, and I think it was fairly decided, based on the court's view of the relevant line of cases. The court clearly distinguishes this situation from Arlington and the like and certainly from religious art in museums. If the Brooklyn Museum had a big cross on top, then it would be relevant. It is anyone's guess whether the Supremes will take it on appeal. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Mar 18 2012, 12:47 PM Post #31 |
|
Shortstop
|
It belongs to Ax on this page. |
|
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 | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 18 2012, 12:48 PM Post #32 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
But like all symbols, they are multivalent -- you are ascribing a monovalent reading to a symbol, effectively treating it as a sign. And you ignore the point that religion requires some form of activity. The whole basis of the First Amendment ("respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is about practice. That was the sense of the article and the legal challenge : "which said the landmark was unconstitutional because it signified government support of a religion on public land, has to be reviewed." If you have a better term, please proffer it. It would not be a willful misunderstanding -- but rather a deeper understanding. And I am always in favor of deeper understanding -- aren't you? You actually have that backwards. By your reasoning, the Jains could not use the swastika because of an adverse association. Why not? You must have some mechanism to distinguish between a Edited by ivorythumper, Mar 18 2012, 12:59 PM.
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 18 2012, 12:58 PM Post #33 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It belongs to both -- both are shown on my one page. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Mar 18 2012, 12:58 PM Post #34 |
|
Cheers
|
The logistics of responding to your points is getting difficult, since we're now at 4-5 mini threads. Re 'activity', as I said before, its not relevant for the constitutional issue. Also your suggestion that no activities are associated with the cross is simply false. Re 'sponsorship' - its not the word I would choose. Maybe 'promotion' or perhaps even 'putting this in my face'. Re 'willful misunderstanding'. You answered my question as I thought you would, though indirectly. Re the Aryan Nation and the Jains - no, I had it right. The analogy is precise. Re where to draw the line, I would need to give ti some thought. Where has the supreme court drawn the line, do you know? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Mar 18 2012, 01:05 PM Post #35 |
|
Cheers
|
I should add at least its just an easter cross. Around here you get subjected to the image of the dead jew on a stick every few blocks. Part of the italian heritage of this neighborhood that gentrification has not yet addressed. (this is a major tangent, since its not the state that hangs them) |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Mar 18 2012, 01:15 PM Post #36 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Yes, it would help if you actually elaborated your principles for discrimination. Since you haven't, I have to rather laboriously try to draw them out.
What specifically religious activities are associated with this cross? It is disingenuous to impute to me "that no activities are associated with the cross" when I am specifically asking about religious activities. Surely, any Constitutional grounds for prohibiting something related to the Establishment clause should speak plainly to actual religious activity, no? Otherwise, ANY religious imagery of cultural significance is liable to the same problem. It existed long before you were alive. Should we eradicate all sorts of things that you or anyone else find objectionable, even if they are culturally and historically significant landmarks? I am sorry that you have such a two dimensional understanding of culture and symbolism. Oh well. No -- the Jain use predates the Aryan use. Like the ancient Roman use predates the Christian use. The Christian use is firmly grounded in the ancient Roman use -- the Aryan Nation use is not grounded at all in the Jain use. Your analogy is flawed. AFAICT, they haven't drawn the line, which is why I think it should go to SCOTUS for determination. You said it shouldn't. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Mar 18 2012, 02:54 PM Post #37 |
|
Cheers
|
Oh, I see your point. THe christian usage of the cross incorporated the meaning it had at the time in Rome. Fair point. Having said that, the idea that when the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross was erected and dedicated to 'our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ', that they didn't consider it a religious symbol, doesn't seem very likely to me. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| 1hp | Mar 18 2012, 04:14 PM Post #38 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
Ax will have to copy the link to the smaller image and edit his post. |
| There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................ | |
![]() |
|
| 1hp | Mar 18 2012, 04:18 PM Post #39 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I thought the comment from Justice Kennedy was spot on: “The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society....." I don't know of many in San Diego who feel/want the cross removed. Frankly, I think this sort of thing should go to the polls and let the majority of San Diego city voters decide. |
| There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and................ | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Mar 18 2012, 04:29 PM Post #40 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
Y'all remind me...if I get appointed American Hitler, the first order of biddness is to shoot every lawyer working for the ACLU. |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Mar 18 2012, 05:20 PM Post #41 |
|
Cheers
|
Funny, the Demjanjuk thread reminded me of a Ukrainian-American friend I had (parents were DPs in the war, he was born in Chicago). His family was extremely anti-soviet, anti-communist. But one thing he would say, with a bit of a laugh, was, "the one thing the communists got right, is they put the priests and the lawyers up against the wall". |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2











4:53 PM Jul 10