May 28, 2005
— Ace As usual. And guess what? You're paying them for this service.
The other interesting thing here is that Snopes -- usually a reliable debunker of Internet hoaxes -- once again deems a story that smacks up liberals "False" despite the fact that it's actually, you know, true.
I've noted before that Snopes tends to slap a "False" on stories that cut against liberal causes, not because they're factually inaccurate, but because Snopes doesn't think the proper "context" (i.e., arguments demonstrating why this is actually "good for America") is provided.
Personal gravestones are the choice of the family members, not the choice of the government. The ACLU celebrates this freedom to choose the religious symbol of your choice.
They are fighting to remove any religious symbols used in memorials, etc., not individual graves.
Again, I don't agree with the ACLU on this, but Snopes didn't screw this up as far as I can tell.
Posted by: Hubris at May 28, 2005 08:34 AM (ywZa8)
Posted by: pylorns at May 28, 2005 09:15 AM (xDzgY)
What the ACLU 'intends' means little if a precedent is set by a federal court. The next judge that comes down the line may very well use this ban of a cross on federal property to have the crosses, star's of David, etc removed from ANC. Remember, the ACLU is not the only 'player' out there. Here in Wisconsin we have the Freedom From Religion Foundation that would not have the same qualms as the ACLU.
Posted by: BrewFan at May 28, 2005 09:23 AM (95UaF)
I hope by then it isn't taxpayer funded.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 28, 2005 09:52 AM (7gfL5)
1. In NYC, the lawsuit Jewish lawyers working for the ACLU filed on Christmas displays resulted in a judge ruling that Christian displays had to come down, but minority religions "only celebrated America's diversity" - and could stay up.
2. The ACLU refused to get involved in a separation lawsuit requesting a heavily Jewish Florida town that banned any display of Nativity scenes but spent public funds erecting 8-foot tall metal Menorahs, stop their discriminatory practice.
3. The ACLU refused to get involved in NYC's decision to have two Hasidim-only public schools. An action school officials was said was needed to preserve their unique culture. The other 230 unique cultures in NYC are of course tossed into the other public schools all together.
4. While going after any Christian cross on any National Park Land, the ACLU was curiously silent when National Park Land was donated for and public funds used to support the Jewish Holocaust Museum on the Mall.
Posted by: Cedarford at May 28, 2005 10:27 AM (HoSBk)
Looks like Snopes was debunking an earlier rumor that specifically related to headstones and grave markers. Karol's article is about a free-standing war memorial. Not the same.
Posted by: Michael at May 28, 2005 10:51 AM (pRtzm)
Posted by: right at May 28, 2005 11:14 AM (v0V52)
What hypocrites? They, as a group, are very upfront about abolishing any signs of morality in law, have no qualms about destroying any group that would advocate responsibility, and openly advocate socialism and communism. What's hypocritical about that?
It is just plain wrong, though.
Posted by: Carlos at May 28, 2005 11:51 AM (Z+PEA)
Posted by: bostonirish at May 28, 2005 12:52 PM (bFhAS)
Posted by: Sortelli at May 28, 2005 02:49 PM (Bjdtq)
P.S. As I understand it, the ACLU was founded by avowed Communists as an instrument of bringingn the revolution to the US through the courts.
P.P.S. It kills me when individual ACLU members wash their hands of specific acts of the ACLU by stating that each state or region's ACLU is autonomous.
Posted by: Pepys at May 28, 2005 03:41 PM (cUt2Z)
Posted by: Michael at May 28, 2005 04:13 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: Claire at May 28, 2005 04:46 PM (l1oyw)
What difference does it make whether it's a whole cemetary or a free-standing memorial? The ACLU's argument should be the same: no religious symbols on public land. If that is their claim, it is not overstating to say that if they win, they'll have a good case to go after graveyards.
Posted by: Karol at May 28, 2005 05:26 PM (hOQdY)
The ACLU started off with a "genteel" crowd of uppercrust WASP liberals organizing to form a force against clear violations to civil liberties caused by the WWI anti-sedition laws, the Palmer raids. And to promote progressivism in society and the workplace. They quickly allied with Jewish unionists, socialists, and communist party leaders, particularly from NYC and Philly. After WWII, they quickly realized that the ACLU was in serious trouble as the Soviet Union threatened because of their large numbers of Soviet admirers and committed Communists. That led to the ACLU anti-communist purge of 1950 - mostly of Jewish Reds and the token blacks they controlled.
By the mid-60's though, the Reds came back, just careful not to call themselves Reds..and still mostly Jewish. Not only came back, but became the dominant source of donations, legal muscle, and took over leadership of the ACLU Executive Director's office and heading regional chapters since Baldwin's retirement. The biggest challenge to the ACLU was it's support of the Nazi march in Skokie - where 25% of the membership was lost, but the money and membership soon returned.
Posted by: Cedarford at May 28, 2005 05:55 PM (6krEN)
The difference is that a headstone memorializes an individual person. A free-standing WWI monument memorializes all who gave their lives in that conflict, many of whom were not Christian and would be offended by being remembered on public property with a cross.
The ACLU has made this distinction, and it's rational.
Geez, I hate defending the ACLU even more than I hate defending Cedarford.
Posted by: Michael at May 28, 2005 06:22 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: right at May 28, 2005 06:55 PM (v0V52)
It simply says that the vets who erected the monument "erected the cross, in honor of their fallen comrades." Perhaps all of their fallen comrades (in a personal sense) were Christians. Without more details, it's hard to say.
Posted by: Sean M. at May 28, 2005 07:08 PM (e0H8j)
P.S. I do not think the ACLU is currently a communist front. But, there is plenty of evidence that it still has an internationalist and anti-american bent and that its love for the "Constitution" is merely a convenience.
Posted by: Pepys at May 28, 2005 07:29 PM (cUt2Z)
Fuck 'em, Michael.
99.9% of the Americans killed in WWI were Christian. ALL of the buddies the men erected the Cross to commemorate in 1934 were Christian.
By that logic, The ACLU should also be going after the numerous Holocaust memorials and museums built on public land in the USA that commemorate the Jews killed by the Nazis. Though some memorials do mention that outside the Holocaust, the Nazis killed others, like Gypsies and gays -, and the Chinese killed 23-25 million of what they considered "subhumans" - the Jews are held as the unique victims.
The ACLU should also be interested in erecting memorials to the atheist and Christian victims of Communism....some 95 million people.
Given who runs the ACLU, don't hold your breath on either count.
They will of course limit themselves to Christian-bashing and ignore slights and oversights that do not involve Christian-bashing.
Posted by: Cedarford at May 28, 2005 07:45 PM (6krEN)
I'll have to go back and re-read about Baldwin and the ACLU founders sometime. I know he led the purge of the mostly Jewish Communists that had infiltrated the ACLU. I hadn't read he was a true communist himself at some point. Knee jerk socialist, die hard liberal progressive...yes...communist, no.
You could very well be right about Baldwin's communist past. I only read one book on the ACLU, that characterized Baldwin as a Red-fighter, though a reluctant one that only purged the Commies to save the ACLU's credibility, and that book ended at the point when Ira Glasser took over. The ACLU is one group, given it's power, that is long overdue for an expose` about it's agendas, secret membership, and money sources....and links to other Leftist groups and how they helped staff the courts with activist judges.
Posted by: Cedarford at May 28, 2005 07:55 PM (6krEN)
It would be wrong to say that Snopes' claim that the ACLU isn't going after the national cemetary is incorrect, because at this moment they're not. But they -are- advancing a similar argument in a separate case here.
Posted by: Sortelli at May 28, 2005 10:00 PM (Bjdtq)
To suggest that the ACLU "should also be going after the numerous Holocaust memorials and museums built on public land in the USA that commemorate the Jews killed by the Nazis" is pure bullshit.
Yeah, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (which is what I presume he's ranting about) mainly focuses on the Nazi's slaughter of the Jews. But guess what...that's what the fucking Nazis were mainly focused on! A museum like that isn't a religious site. It's an historical reminder of what can happen when religious hatred gets out of hand. I'd say that gives us a valuable insight into the minds of people like Cedarford, who proves himself to be an anti-semite almost every time he posts something here.
He also writes the following:
Though some memorials do mention that outside the Holocaust, the Nazis killed others, like Gypsies and gays -, and the Chinese killed 23-25 million of what they considered "subhumans" - the Jews are held as the unique victims.
Oh, really, you Nazi sympathizer? Have you been to the website of the USHMM? If you had, you might have seen that their spotlight is on the genocide in Darfur. And I don't think most of the people killed there have been Jews. A lot of them have been Christians, in fact.
And, by the way, I'd be happy if the government would sanction a monument to the millions of victims of communism. Would it bother you if there was a mention of the fact that the Soviets discriminated against Jews as well? Somehow, I suspect the answer would be an enthusiastic "No!"
Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2005 12:13 AM (e0H8j)
Gravestones in public cemeteries are not deemed to constitute a government endorsement of religion because they individually represent the private religious beliefs of the persons buried there, and those symbols are chosen by family members of the deceased and not the government.
This is an imperfect analogy, but it's kind of like the distinction I think the ACLU would draw between a kid wearing a "What Would Jesus Do?" shirt to school (an act I assume the ACLU would defend, someone could correct me on this) versus the school putting up a WWJD plaque on the wall.
Posted by: Hubris at May 29, 2005 02:53 AM (ywZa8)
I think the point The Alarming News was making was that in light of current events perhaps the claim Snopes discussed doesn't seem as far-fetched as it did a few years ago. The case could be made that Snopes should add an update.
But I think Ace's characterization of Snopes somehow spinning this story is unfair. But perhaps I'm being unfair to Ace, as we all know he has this disorder where he doesn't realize things are old, so he was unable to do so with the Snopes article.
Posted by: Bob at May 29, 2005 03:50 AM (MZnGZ)
Posted by: at May 29, 2005 04:48 AM (zemt/)
Of course, if it memorializes only specific soldiers, all of whom were Christians, then the above does not apply since a cross DOES accurately relate to the faith of those who are memorialized.
Posted by: Craig R. Harmon at May 29, 2005 07:21 AM (fiL4o)
A free-standing WWI monument memorializes all who gave their lives in that conflict, many of whom were not Christian and would be offended by being remembered on public property with a cross.
As an atheist, I can say it's very faulty for the ACLU to automatically assume that non-Christians would be 'offended' by having a cross on a memorial honoring them.
And, if other religions were offended, then whoever represented them should have spoken up during the design phase, not after the stupid thing had been built.
But really, the point is that the ACLU (the Anti-Christian Leftist Union) has one primary goal: to get rid of any and all religious symbolism in this country, public and private, and this is just another step in that direction. Folks who try to rationally explain their arguments are pawns in furthering that goal.
Posted by: bbeck at May 29, 2005 08:00 AM (qF8q3)
Exactly. Again, it makes no difference if it's one memorial or several graves. The argument remains the same: no religious symbols on public land. The Snopes take is therefore wrong because no one is trying to exxagerate the ACLU's position.
Posted by: Karol at May 29, 2005 08:41 AM (hOQdY)
But Karol, that's not the test that's being stated. From the Buono v Norton decision:
Finally, defendants suggest that a reasonable observer aware of the history of the cross—such as its placement by private individuals—would believe that the government is not endorsing Christianity by allowing the cross to remain at the site. However, a reasonable observer who is that well informed would know the full history of the cross: that Congress has designated the cross as a war memorial and prohibited the use of funds to remove it, and that the Park Service has denied similar access for expression by an adherent of the
Buddhist faith. “ ‘Whatever else the Establishment Clause may mean . . . , it certainly means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions).’ ” *
To say that test is indistinguishable from the private choice of symbols on individual gravestones on federal land is inaccurate, I think.
*It's also fun to read the decision to see how ridiculous the plaintiffs' claims of "harm" in this particular case were.
Posted by: Hubris at May 29, 2005 09:07 AM (ywZa8)
Posted by: mad heron at May 29, 2005 09:42 AM (K3hNB)
And Cedarford, shut up. Joooos=commies. You doofus.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 29, 2005 11:34 AM (AM20O)
Posted by: Pepys at May 29, 2005 11:44 AM (cUt2Z)
Cedarford's comment reminds me of Buchanan.
Posted by: Hubris at May 29, 2005 11:52 AM (ywZa8)
You're too kind. Waay too kind. It's just plain ridiculous to equate religious symbols on a headstone with an act of Congress that designates a Latin cross on public land as a war memorial. Hard to imagine a more obvious violation of the establishment clause. Apparently even Congress knows they've gone too far -- they're trying to transfer the land to the VFW.
The involvement of the ACLU does not necessarily mean that conservatives should automatically start frothing at the mouth and ranting like some outrage has been perpetrated by the left. Every once in a while, the ACLU is right. And, for that matter, every once in a while the odiously liberal 9th Circuit is right. This is one of those times.
Both the ACLU and Snopes have been unfairly slammed by Karol, Ace, and the knee-jerk reaction of most of the commenters on this thread. It pains me to observe wingnut behavior from conservatives. I'd like to believe that this is more typical of the lefties.
Thanks, Hubris, for taking the time to look up the frigging case and supply the link. Glad someone decided to check out the facts before they went nucular.
Posted by: Michael at May 29, 2005 12:33 PM (pRtzm)
Soooo, Cedarford, why isn't the Federalist Society ripe for an expose?
Oh, I get it. They're staffing the courts with conservatives. And indoctrinating law students with conservative ideas. And they probably have relatively few Jooooos on the roster.
I get it.
(Gotta mock CF once in a while just to keep BrewFan happy.)
Posted by: Michael at May 29, 2005 12:44 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2005 12:45 PM (e0H8j)
Forget Karol's excerpts from the article, which are highly misleading. Check out the court's decision -- Hubris provided the link. A lot of the history of Congressional shenanigans in this matter appears in the court's discussion of the mootness issue.
Posted by: Michael at May 29, 2005 12:50 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2005 12:51 PM (e0H8j)
Posted by: Friend of Tiffany at May 29, 2005 01:08 PM (pRtzm)
How about compos' explosive shitting? Now there's a rich vein that can be mined indefinitely.
Posted by: Uriah Heep at May 29, 2005 01:13 PM (pRtzm)
Well its good to see a glimpse of the real Michael. I've always been curious why you hang out here. I guess its for the flame wars.
Posted by: BrewFan at May 29, 2005 01:25 PM (95UaF)
Good guess. Why don't you get your mother a new pair of Army boots?
Posted by: Michael at May 29, 2005 01:27 PM (pRtzm)
And what's with this Buono guy getting so offended by a cross? Is he a vampire or something?
Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2005 02:52 PM (e0H8j)
Here's another knee-jerk reaction: blow me.
Posted by: BrewFan at May 29, 2005 03:12 PM (95UaF)
As a Christian, I am offended by a cross being used by Congress as a war memorial. And I'm not a vampire. The cross is a symbol of the atoning sacrifice of Christ that gives victory over sin and death. Not exactly the right symbol to commemorate a war.
Posted by: Michael at May 29, 2005 03:15 PM (pRtzm)
Well, get your Mom out of the way, and I will.
Posted by: Pure Herbal Viagra at May 29, 2005 03:22 PM (pRtzm)
Not when the Jewish-run ACLU bashes Christian WWI/WWII memorials - claiming they do not belong on public land according to the Constitution. But insists on "Jewish Holocust" memorials and museums as justly focusing on the 1/3rd of 1% of Americans that died in WWII - the hero Jews - and the 3-4% that were butchered in WWII.
mainly focuses on the Nazi's slaughter of the Jews. But guess what...that's what the fucking Nazis were mainly focused on
No, any objective reader of WWII history knows it Wasn't All About the Jews.
Though Sean M is indoctrinated to think otherwise.
Shock of shocks, Sean M - WWII was NOT - All About the Jews...................
Oh, really, you Nazi sympathizer? Have you been to the website of the USHMM? If you had, you might have seen that their spotlight is on the genocide in Darfur.
Talking a good talk may be morally exculpatory for you, Sean M., but for others, how many Jews are willing to join the US military and actually fight for ending the genocide in Darfur or winning Iraq?
Less than 2 dozen assholes in the US military are Jewish and agitating to " save" Darfurian black Muslims.
Less than the number of Jewish assholes in the media currently attempting to lynch US troops for Abu Ghraib "atrocities" save those pursuing other anti-American sentiments. Less than the actually serving America 1st, while in uniform.
Call anyone who has reservations of how devoted Jews are to America, and you don't have a leg to stand on, if the same Americans start talking about Zionist's higher loyalty. Is it to Constitution and the USA, or to the Land Above All Criticism???
Posted by: Cedarford at May 29, 2005 03:24 PM (HoSBk)
Let me know when your testicles descend, if you've actually got any.
Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2005 03:28 PM (e0H8j)
Come back when you're done sucking David Irving's cock.
Posted by: Sean M. at May 29, 2005 03:31 PM (e0H8j)
The only Axis & East Europe motivation was to kill Jews- and is falsely assiciated with Red terror.
And the only reason we fought was to free the Jews -that's what our history books coming from NYC and Tel Aviv say.
Posted by: extszy at May 29, 2005 03:35 PM (HoSBk)
Posted by: Sortelli at May 29, 2005 04:33 PM (Bjdtq)
It's basically a big cock, not a cross. Far more appropriate for a war memorial.
Posted by: at May 29, 2005 04:44 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: Michael at May 29, 2005 04:46 PM (pRtzm)
Being offended must at some point happen to any person who gives a damn, in a free society of other individuals who also give a damn. It is worse than ridiculous to act as though one should be able to float through society without one's beliefs ever being seriously challenged--this takes away much of the reason for associating with other people in the first place: that you will encounter people who are very different from yourself and whose beliefs are very different from your own.
Posted by: alex at May 29, 2005 06:01 PM (AttyB)
Posted by: Sean M. at May 30, 2005 12:36 AM (e0H8j)
(waits five minutes)
Alright, he's dead. Let's read the will (opens envelope). Lessee . . . crazy blog money . . . mmhmm . . . not one red cent . . . mmhmm . . . what's a "Paul Anka Preservation Society"?
Posted by: Rusty Mouse at May 30, 2005 03:28 AM (CBKSg)
Posted by: at May 30, 2005 06:03 AM (zemt/)
Posted by: Jim Hoft at May 30, 2005 06:34 AM (wYLzo)
As a Christian, I am offended by a cross being used by Congress as a war memorial.
Come on, Michael, the cross symbolizes many things to many people...such as the sacrifice of one's life to save others. That's perfectly appropriate for a war memorial.
The cross is a symbol of the atoning sacrifice of Christ that gives victory over sin and death. Not exactly the right symbol to commemorate a war.
Why not? Taking such a stance implies that the soldiers who gave their lives in World War I didn't deserve Christ's sacrifice, nor would the dead be atoned or have victory over death and sin. They don't lose their right to have Christian symbols represent them just because they died in a war.
Furthermore, you're implying that war is wicked and wrong, and that's silly. War may be Hell but it's only evil if your motivation is misplaced. There ARE times when one side is on the side of the righteous, and that's where the US was during WWI.
Posted by: bbeck at May 30, 2005 07:16 AM (qF8q3)
Of course, Seedy can eat dogshit and die.
Posted by: Sue Dohnim at May 30, 2005 07:18 AM (tnsUn)
Point taken. Still, even if many consider the symbol to be appropriate, the establishment clause issue does not go away. The fact remains that Congress gave preferential treatment to a Christian symbol by establishing this monument as a war memorial, and the Park Service denied the request of Buddhists to erect a memorial of their own.
I still think the good folk of Kansas City did it right with the Liberty Memorial. Put up a nice big cock to commemorate a war. That's a symbol everyone can identify with (will, maybe not Megan).
I had a great view of this thing from my hotel room a couple of weeks ago. At night, steam comes out of the tip and is illuminated by red light. No kidding. This is supposed to represent liberty somehow.
The whole facility, including museum, is pretty impressive. I'm told that any kid growing up in Kansas City has been there on at least a couple of field trips.
The link below will take you to the Liberty Memorial Museum home page. Well worth a browse on this Memorial Day. Reminded me of my grandfather talking about being in France during WWI. Hadn't thought of that in many years.
Posted by: Michael at May 30, 2005 08:22 AM (pRtzm)
Can't tell you how proud I am to come from a family with a long history of ripping off the French.
Posted by: Michael at May 30, 2005 08:39 AM (pRtzm)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 30, 2005 09:48 AM (3VKxI)
Posted by: Pepys at May 30, 2005 11:26 AM (cUt2Z)
The comments seemed to have perked up quite a bit since their entry. The logic appears to be more pointed, the arguments firmer, the general tone more bouncy...
The cleavage between the two opposing sides is definitely more well-defined and visible. The rhetoric thrusts forward relentlessly and the clarity of thought is like a glass of ice-cold water, thrown into a heated duo of jutting, ripened trains of thought.
All in all, a positive development.
Posted by: Dogstar at May 30, 2005 12:58 PM (KgeNY)
Posted by: Michael at May 30, 2005 02:00 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: blancobrawler at May 30, 2005 04:05 PM (4XAwT)
Second that. I think Ace went over two million page views and started hitting the Val-U-Rite vodka.
Any chance you live near the Blanco River in the Texas Hill Country?
Posted by: Michael at May 30, 2005 04:40 PM (pRtzm)
At the half: Spurs 59, Suns 52.
Posted by: Michael at May 30, 2005 04:44 PM (pRtzm)
Posted by: Jay at May 30, 2005 05:29 PM (qyd+U)
Dogstar, who would have thought you could actually write 5 lines of anything, much less with all these word plays and innuendos, given your one-track mind... hey, narrow but quite creative, eh? ;-)
Posted by: Alessandra at May 30, 2005 06:07 PM (fNYYe)
I don't live there anymore (though Austin is pretty close) but I grew up there.
Posted by: blancobrawler at May 30, 2005 09:01 PM (FnipP)
Posted by: Dogstar at May 30, 2005 09:18 PM (KgeNY)
Posted by: Dman at May 31, 2005 05:28 AM (m2CN7)
This is demonstrably untrue. Whatever Deist tomfoolery they got up to on their own, the Founders were very clear that religion (and by that, they meant Christianity, oh yes indeedy) was an important prop of public morality; several of the original states maintained established churches well into the 19th century.
So, while you can argue that under the penumbra of the emanation of the intertextuality of the evolving beating breathing living sweating heart of the Constitution, the E.C. is now taken to mean this - "certainly at the very least" is wayyyyy too strong.
Posted by: Knemon at May 31, 2005 09:00 AM (QaHR7)
And AHEM, Dave in Texas, it was not ~I~ who brought them up. In fact, I said NOT to.
Men do seem to have a problem with endowed women having an opinion on something other than bra labels and t-shirts. But really, who else can put things in perspective better and see an argument from all sides? In fact, I can't HELP but think in 3-D.
Posted by: bbeck at May 31, 2005 01:49 PM (qF8q3)
I have no problem at all with endowed women having an opinion about things interessant and all.
Which is why I encourage it. I'm "encourragable" that way.
Other ways too, which I probably shouldn't go into.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2005 06:03 PM (A57b7)
62 queries taking 1.607 seconds, 314 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.