U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Jesus Statue Could Be Forced Off Montana Mountain
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://ksax.com/article/stories/S2341163.shtml?cat=10230
Published: Oct 23, 2011
Author: Associated Press
Post Date: 2011-10-23 19:36:43 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 72586
Comments: 97
The statue has been a curiosity to skiers at the famed Big Mountain ski hill for decades, mystifying skiers at its appearance in the middle of the woods as they cruise down a popular ski run. "This has been an illegal display. The lease should have never happened," said Gaylor. "Just because a violation is long lasting doesn't make it Rehberg, a Republican, is telling the Forest Service he agrees the historical significance outweighs other concerns. 
A statue of Jesus on U.S. Forest Service land in the mountains over a Montana ski resort faces potential eviction amid an argument over the separation of church and state.
The Forest Service offered a glimmer of hope late last week for the statue's supporters by withdrawing an initial decision to boot the Jesus statue from its hillside perch in the trees. But as it further analyzes the situation before making a final decision, the agency warned rules and court decisions are stacked against allowing a religious icon on the 25-by-25 foot patch of land.
But the Freedom From Religion Foundation isn't amused by the Jesus statue. The group argued that the Forest Service was breaching separation of church and state rules by leasing the small plot of land for the Jesus statue, and is pushing the agency to stand by its original decision to remove the religious icon.
"This has huge meaning for Americans. And if you aren't religious it has huge meaning as well," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, with the Madison, Wis.-based group. "If skiers think that it is cute, then put it up on private property. It is not cute to have a state religious association."
The local Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, have maintained the statue ever since members that included World War II veterans, who were inspired by religious monuments they saw while fighting in the mountains of Europe, erected the monument in the 1950s. But the group thinks the large statue made of a cement-type material is too fragile in its current state to be moved around the rugged mountainside to a different location.
The Forest Service in August initially rejected a renewal of the 10-year lease. It said the religious nature of the statue was obvious and believed it could be placed on private land as close as 2,600 feet away. The Knights have never been charged for use of the public land.
The agency, under fire from Congressman Deny Rehberg and others, announced Friday it would withdraw that decision and open the issue again to public comment. It said a notification that the statue is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places could help - but is far from a guarantee it can stay.
Gaylor, with the group fighting the statue, called it a "ruse and a sham" to consider it an historic marker.
historic. It makes it historically bad. It makes it worse. It makes it all the more reason to get rid of it."
Bill Glidden, Grand Knight of the Kalispell Council, recently submitted the request asking the Forest Service to change its mind. He stressed the historical significance of the statue to the Whitefish, and believes it honors the memory of the veterans who installed it.
"We would like to see it stay there. The community would like to see it say there," Glidden said. "It's more than just a religious icon, it is a memorial to our vets."
"The Forest Service's denial of the lease defies common sense. Using a tiny section of public land for a war memorial with religious themes is not the same as establishing a state religion," Rehberg said in a statement. "That's true whether it's a cross or a Star of David on a headstone in the Arlington National Cemetery, an angel on the Montana Vietnam Memorial in Missoula or a statue of Jesus on Big Mountain."
The Forest Service in its original decision pointed to case law stacked against such a statue, and argues rules prevent the federal government from favoring or promoting religion. The Knights were ordered in that August letter to have a removal plan in place by the end of the year, and must have the statue moved and the site restored in a year.
Phil Sammon, media coordinator for the Forest Service's Northern Region, said the agency is carefully looking at the issue.
"We absolutely understand the local importance and local history of this statue," he said. "That's what makes this a complicated issue."
Whitefish resident Bob Brown, a former state legislator and Montana secretary of state, said the issue dominated talk at his American Legion meeting this week. He said residents, few old enough to remember a time when it wasn't there, don't understand the turmoil.
"We all agreed around the table this is a tempest in a teapot. This is making trouble for us in our little community. Why don't they just leave us alone?" Brown said. "We are accustomed to it. It is part of our tradition here. So we are thinking, `why does anyone want to tear that down."'
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
I think the statue should stay. What about you?
It seems as though rent is being paid for the piece of ground the statue is on so I'm fine with it. Of course other religions should be afforded the same right on adjacent ground to rent and place their religious icons should they desire to do so.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
I think it should for sure,who's it hurting? Since when has it become okay for someone to be persecuted for their beliefs? I find the mosque being built on 9/11 sites way more agregious,but im a Christian I can't say that.Geesh
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
It should be moved to private land. It is a violation between church and state to allow any religion to place their icons on public land. Here in Eugene we had a huge cross that used to be downtown on Skinner's Butte, a hill overlooking city center. It has been moved to the Eugene Bible College's hillside campus in West Eugene. This was done because of a court ruling based on it being a city park. The only other solutution would be to sell the land to a private owner.
Mike you're full of shit. You didn't quote from any law or anything in the constitution. The constitution says you can't make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. You're stupid or a liar. Sorry if that hurts your little feelings. I'm just telling it like it is.
OK, now say islamic people want to rent another piece of public land for a statue to honor Allah and his prophet Mohammed. They would have to allow this to be fair. You can't favor one religion this way and not have others want to compete in this way.
It has been moved to the Eugene Bible College's hillside campus in West Eugene. This was done because of a court ruling based on it being a city park. Who ever initiated the lawsuit should be visited in the night and have their ass kicked. Then they should put it back. Then tell the judge to F off. Tell the asswipe to throw out his money because it says God on it too. You can really be a moron sometimes.
Screw the islamics. They can go back to Arabia or to hell.
Yes you can. There is only one God.
Is it not a violation to teach children atheist views in public schools? We can't even say Merry Christmas anymore,we have to be inclusive of those that have no faith-Merry X-Mas Mr. President. When is this anti-Christian movement going to stop,does the statue burn your eyes sir?
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
You can't favor one religion this way and not have others want to compete in this way. Of course other religions should be afforded the same right on adjacent ground to rent and place their religious icons should they desire to do so. Indeed. That is what I'm saying...
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
I've taken a 400 level course when getting my degree on the U.S. Supreme Court, and have read up on this issue. I have a well informed opinion. And here, I am agreeing with the court ruling on the Eugene 88 foot lit cross case that had this icon moved. Calling me names doesn't make much of a point. It just makes you look small and narrow minded.
Indeed. That is what I'm saying... I can understand your desire for that. I can even respect it to an extent. It kind of seems fair. But if there truly is a God then he would be offended at that notion. Can you understand that?
Quote me what the constitution says and lets see if your argument holds water.
If being narrow minded means not opening yourself up to evil. Color me narrow minded. You can call me closed minded on certain issues too if you want. I've already made my mind up.
I am even against a Wicca shrine or icon on public land. The First Amendment calls for what is government to not favor one religion over another. And I don't think my religion deserves more consideration in this than any other. If this case is resolved with this statue standing, then other religions will use the courts if they have to because of the precedent this sets.
We agree on something.
No it doesn't. Again quote me from the constitution what makes you think this wacky stuff.
Why do you avoid commenting on the court ruling and instead rhetorically go for my jugular? Do you have an argument explaining why you think court rulings on separation between church and state in cases like this is erronious. It's OK if you do offer an argument on this, Stone. Even though I'll know you are not grasping the concepts of the issue well.
I think he is afraid to address the valid point that you made.
I always go for the jugular. I trumped your court decision with the actual constitution. Queen of Spades beats a 3 of diamonds every time.
Because the constitution never says "church and sate separation" or anything like it. It says the govenment can't make "ANY" laws prohibiting the free exercise of speech or religion. You're trumped. Check Mate.
More Print ALBANY -- Gov. Paterson floated a possible state solution to the Ground Zero mosque fight yesterday -- offering public land for the proposed Islamic center farther away from the World Trade Center. Excerpt from NY Post http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/gov_offers_land_for_mosque_if_it_YKrG1nuNaSdM bNuoZ7IabM Where's the uproar over this? We will give you public land to move your mosque off 9/11 lands. There should be no compensation for this.
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
In a better world there would be no mosques in America or anywhere on earth.
You know what's wrong with that statement? Jesus doesn't demand everyone follow him,he gave us a choice. I have no problem with other religions,I don't agree but it's their right. Im sick of all this negativity over people worshipping Christ openly. Congress would have us all praying in dark alleys.
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
He gave us a choice with consequences. In the Bible God told the Jews to not allow other peoples religion in their society.
I don't care if someone doesn't want to be a christian. It is up to them. I don't respect them for that choice though. You can't force people to accept the truth.
Amen
Jesus Christ,the original ,cherish him,love him,but most importantly don't forget him
The City of Eugene ("City") maintains a public park on and around Skinner's Butte [sic], a hill cresting immediately north of the City's downtown business district. The land was donated to the City and has been maintained as a public park for many years. From the late 1930s to 1964, private individuals erected a succession of wooden crosses in the park, one replacing another as they deteriorated. In 1964, private individuals erected the cross at issue in this litigation. It is a fifty-one foot concrete Latin cross with neon inset tubing, and it is located at the crest of Skinner's Butte. The parties who erected the cross did not seek the City's permission to do so beforehand; however, they subsequently applied for and received from the City a building permit and an electrical permit. Since 1970, the City has illuminated the cross for seven days during the Christmas season, five days during the Thanksgiving season, and on Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day. The cross has been the subject of litigation since the time it was erected. In 1969, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the cross violated both the federal and the Oregon Constitutions because it was erected with a religious purpose and created the inference of official endorsement of Christianity. Lowe v. City of Eugene, 463 P.2d 360, 362-63 (Or. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1042 , reh'g denied, 398 U.S. 944 (1970). Soon after, the City held a charter amendment election, and on May 26, 1970, the voters, by a wide margin, approved an amendment to the City Charter designating the cross a war memorial. Pursuant to that amendment, the cross was deeded to the City as a gift, and a bronze plaque was placed at the foot of the cross dedicating it as a memorial to war veterans. The Eugene City Charter provides that the "concrete cross on the south slope of the butte shall remain at that location and in that form as property of the city and is hereby dedicated as a memorial to the veterans of all wars in which the United States has participated." On June 14, 1997 and as a result of the 9th Federal Circuit's ruling, the cross was subsequently removed and reinstalled at Eugene Bible College near Churchill High School and a flagpole flying an American flag was erected in its place. U.S. Representative from Oregon Charles O. Porter was one of the people who had advocated for the removal of the cross.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_Butte Qyite simply, by allowing an icon of one religion to have such a prominate position, it creates an implied preference by the government of one religion over another. This statue has a religious message much as a bill board is used to sell space to shill for products, services or destinations. Thus it is a message - speech that violates the First Amendment separation between church and state. The First Amendment gives the government the responsibility to treat religions fair and equally. And futher, Iam sure that when this statue's case advances far enough along to the SCOTUS, the precedents created before -- one of which in fact is the Eugene Oregon case, this statue will either have to go, or the land become private. And if the second option is taken, the fight over other religion's icons going up will make this a complex and very long situation to be dealt with.
I understand what you are saying. Jesus did also say something about praying in private. That way you are not kind of boasting that are good because you are praying. The same with giving. Didn't he say to give secretly. That way you wouldn't be boasting, look at me I'm good I gave to help the poor or whatever.
blah blah blah. You're already trumped by the first amendment.
Mike I'm going to have to call you a liar. I've already proven there is no such phrase in the constitution as "separation of church and state". You refuse to acknowledge this shows you are dishonest. You know I am right. That is why you refuse to quote the actual words of the constitution. Instead you repeat your mantra of separation of church and state. Which is a lie.
We made a mistake when we let non Christians immigrate here. We should have stuck with people with cultures like ours. Now some future generation is gong to have to wipe them out.
this statue impedes 'the free exercise of religion' by implying a preference of one religion over another by giving Christianity a spot to advertise and imply their faith is better then all others. This clearly flies in confluct with the intent of the First Amendment.
So you favor a theocracy like we have in Iran, and do not support, want to preserve, or defend the U.S. Constitution and it's Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment. I'm sure many native Americans would agree with you about banning immigration and expelling religions not their own. But if they had done that from the start, where would it have left you Christians?
Post #34 uses verbiage from the First Amendment to expound on my argument, and my opinion is no lie, it is an opinion. One the court has backed. By calling me a 'liar,' you are in fact saying any point of disagreement with you is a lie. thus if people don't robotically believe as you do, they are a liar living in a lie. This is insane, and comical a way to think.
You have captured the essence of Stone, except you left out that you're a baby murderer too.
Well Skip, maybe I've 'murdered' so many swimmers with half the gene pool of babies, I just had to do that out of feelings of deep personal guilt. [note to Stone: I am kidding in a very sarcastic manner, just so you don't get too excited here.]
The concept that earlier or historical precedents can be changed in the "blink of an eye" demonstrates that America is under siege. All the earlier rules built upon known precedent are NOW under tremendous influence, not by by anyone's thinking, too. It is a government OUT OF FUCKING CONTROL.
You are embarrassed about your own belief system? GET THE FUCK OFF THIS WEB BOARD OR I SHALL STEAL YOUR PASSWORD.
Have you ever restated your own quote in a mirror, say before going to work or after school, or even while you take a shower after sex with your wife? You know, you are a FUCKING ASSHOLE. I am sick & tired of your opinions, too. You are some MFer whacking off to porno sites that thinks bullshit. You only come here on this channel for some sort of passion about control based on RULES that you don't even observe.
This clearly flies in confluct with the intent of the First Amendment. Still you refuse to quote from the first amendment to make your case. You spin and twist........in the wind. For about the 10th time. What words from the first amendment are in conflict?
No. I favor going back several decades to the way it was back then.
Yes they would. We can learn from their mistakes. Do you think they would have made the same choices knowing the outcome?
First off I'm a native American. Most all of us are except the illegals. 1And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come on you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you shall call them to mind among all the nations, where the LORD your God has driven you, 2And shall return to the LORD your God, and shall obey his voice according to all that I command you this day, you and your children, with all your heart, and with all your soul; 3That then the LORD your God will turn your captivity, and have compassion on you, and will return and gather you from all the nations, where the LORD your God has scattered you. 4If any of your be driven out to the outmost parts of heaven, from there will the LORD your God gather you, and from there will he fetch you: 5And the LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and he will do you good, and multiply you above your fathers. 6And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. 7And the LORD your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on them that hate you, which persecuted you. 8And you shall return and obey the voice of the LORD, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. 9And the LORD your God will make you plenteous in every work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your land, for good: for the LORD will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers: 10If you shall listen to the voice of the LORD your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul. 11For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not hidden from you, neither is it far off. 12It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14But the word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it. 15See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil; 16In that I command you this day to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that you may live and multiply: and the LORD your God shall bless you in the land where you go to possess it. 17But if your heart turn away, so that you will not hear, but shall be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; 18I denounce to you this day, that you shall surely perish, and that you shall not prolong your days on the land, where you pass over Jordan to go to possess it. 19I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live: 20That you may love the LORD your God, and that you may obey his voice, and that you may hold to him: for he is your life, and the length of your days: that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
When you use words "separation of church and state" and say it is in the constitution. That is a lie or ignorance. In your case I know it isn't ignorance as I know you've read the first amendment. That is a fact. You still never offered any quote from the constitution that would require this statues removal. You should say these words from the constitution (then quote them) would forbid the placing of statue on mountain. Then we can see if the words you quote would render the placement of statue unconstitutional. But you only quote 3 words then use them out of context. Typical anti constitutional liberal.
You have captured the essence of Stone, except you left out that you're a baby murderer too. Yes that is my essence. Exposing people to the truth. If a person who has read the first amendment says that there is "separation of church and state" in the constitution They are lying. That is a fact. Quit whining about it. The truth shouldn't get you angry.
Have you ever restated your own quote in a mirror, say before going to work or after school, or even while you take a shower after sex with your wife? What I am saying is this buckeroo. If there really is a God. If his word really is the Bible. Wouldn't it be nice if we were all following him and living in peace, truth, love. Truly following God and doing what is right. If that were the case why would there be any mosques?
You have no sense of reality, pal. All you have are hopes and dreams based upon false ideals and opinions + you have no conceptual picture of the REAL world. What a laff!
If you had good reading comprehension. You would have understood what the words "In a better world" meant. You just assumed it meant something else. I think you assumed it meant we should harm muslims or something like that. That isn't what it meant. So you should have been polite and asked for clarification if you didn't understand. But that is ok. Now you know.
I have a great perception of what is going on. I know world events and a tiny bit about the Bible. Watch Syria fall. Take that to the bank. Syria, Libya, Iran, Egypt will all attack Israel someday soon. Egypt was our ally until recently. Libya was not going to attack Israel under Khadaffi. The Bible is true buddy. You can get great insight about where this middle east thing is going by reading the Bible. If you don't know that it is your problem not mine.
Good luck twit.
I see where you are going: covering your own errors of logic, Fine.
But notice your own self-defensive characteristics: no new data or presentation.
You are a "whack-job." And I am through with you, pal, with the exception of
saying this:and continue your self-stimulation. You are non receptive to ideas
or opinions. You are an ignorant MFer that knows nothing, understands nothing
and has no reach for anything about himself or the Universe around yourself.
There is no reason for me to make any more posts on your channel. Goodbye as I
can not learn anything. I saw that you deleted my earlier
post and called me a "twit." Go f**k YOURSELF similar to the hypocrisy of
your beloved patronage, "yukon." You suck donkey dicks, EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU IS
HYPOCRISY. You know NOTHING.
You are a twit. You said you were already gone. What 5 or 10 times now. Will you keep your word this time? I don't think so. Regardless have a good life. Sorry you are in such a foul mood tonight. Hope everything is ok.
It doesn't matter what's going on in his life, good, or bad, his behavior towards you was uncalled for. Just speaking for myself, I would have apologized to that walking hangover when hell froze over....jmo!
Git your ass back up there in the hills and FUCK your cousins. Enjoy your corncob pipe and 200% moonshine. It is a American tradition, correct?
I thought you weren't coming back. Is it harder then giving up booze?
I am smoking a cocaine rock of the purest origin upon the planet. And you worry about booze? What is the matter with you? Are you really a DUMBFUCK?
Here. I'll help you keep your word.
You are lazy and blind. I did in post #34, 'BETWEEN THE NOTATION MARKS,' dumbshit. Learn how to read.
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. Or are you so ill educated you don't comprehend the word 'thereof?'
What did you do? Ban buckeroo?
You are lazy and blind. I did in post #34, 'BETWEEN THE NOTATION MARKS,' dumbshit. Learn how to read. Hey dumbshit. Like I said. You posted 3 words then twisted the meaning. You're not an honest person. Here is all you offered. You must be offended by the constitution. You're an Obama groupie what would you expect. Your quote "this statue impedes 'the free exercise of religion' " Now dummy. Taking the statue down "impedes the free exercise of religion". Dumb ass.
When people talk like that to me they get the axe. Temporarily or permanently. Besides he is a crack head. He admitted it.
Look up the word "or". You're welcome.
You repeatedly show you don't know much about how case law works and what a legal precedent is. So it's no surprise the meaning of the First Amendment seems to go over your head. It is pointless discussing this issue with you. As for the bait and insults, they have nothing to add to the discussion. There is no point in either of us engaging each other that way. It is just a waste of time, and it doesn't add anything to a dialog on anything.
I don't give a shit about precedent. I care about what the document ACTUALLY SAYS! Not some asshole usurpers spin on it. Comprende?
This is off topic. Stay on topic.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stare_decisis You don't understand. Your opinion does not change the way the legal system works. You are always welcome to have your opinion on the system or stare decisis, but you are taking issue when people explain it as well as support it. You may not like the system of creating consistency and fairness in the legal system this way, but your opinion does not change reality. Je le comprende, mec. Le probleme est tu ne le comprende jamais.
Likewise, I am sure.
That isn't in the constitution. Unconstitutional. The constitution means what it says. Says what it means. All spin by the freaks in black robes is subject to being overturned. For example. The interstate commerce clause doesn't mean the government can do whatever it wants to. The General Welfare clause doesn't mean that either. I hope for a Gadaffi like fate to those who are presently destroying and perverting the constitution. Think Obama and his masters.
You should really take the time to learn the topic. others and myself have tried to explain this topic to you, but you don't want to listen. That is your choice; as is mine to not want to try to show you over and over again where you are not comprehending how the U.S. Constitution works and it's relation to the legal system. Your argument has no standing with me because I have spent a great deal of time in school and in doing activism where I've learned how the Constitution and legal system works, how it affects what I care about, advocate and what it's faults and graces are. I'm sure there is an institution of higher learning near you that allows folks to enroll in classes that deal with the high court and the U.S. Constitution.
There's nothing in the USCON which establishes uniform rules of interpretation. When a controversy arises, whether it's based on statutory, common or constitutional law, in deciding the case, a judge will always consider previous similar cases in making his or her decision. The Framers make reference after reference to Blackstone and other, lesser legal authorities, in their deliberations: But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the law of the land. The knowledge of that law is derived from experience and study; from the viginti annorum lucubrationes [war: iirc, the learning of life or lifelong learning], which Fortescue mentions; and from being long persoually accustomed to the judicial decisions of their predecessors. And indeed these judicial decisions are the principal and most authoritative evidence, that can be given, of the existence of such a custom as shall form a part of the common law. The judgment itself, and all the proceedings previous thereto, are carefully registered and preserved, under the name of records, in public repositories set apart for that particular purpose; and to them frequent recourse is had, when any critical question arises, in the determination of which former precedents may give light or assistance. And therefore, even so early as the conquest, we find the præteritorum memoria eventorum [iirc, the memory of previous events] reckoned up as one of the chief qualifications of those, who were held to be legibus patriæ optime instituti [teachers or deciders of law, I think]. For it is an established rule to abide by former precedents, where the same points come again in litigation: as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion; as also because the law in that case being solemnly declared and determined, what before was uncertain, and perhaps indifferent, is now become a permanent rule, which it is not in the breast of any subsequent judge to alter or vary from according to his private sentiments: he being sworn to determine, not according to his own private judgement, but according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one. Blackstone, Commentaries of the Laws of England Stare decisis in contract law is why, when someone rips you off by not paying you for work, you have legal recourse to collect and, possibly, punish.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
I know the concept. The constitution has been destroyed.
Three dimensional representations of Jesus are a heresy condemned by the Christian councils.
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
The constitution can be intrepreted with a dictionary. People are liars. They lie about what it says. That is how you get precedents that pervert it. For example you don't know what "no law" means. Then you spin it. I know there are judges who put great thought and deliberation into a case. Then they write an opinion on it. That is fine. But today we are in the place where these "precedents" have been put in place and have made the constitution say things that it CLEARLY isn't saying. So if you read the constitution use that as your basis then you can get to the TRUTH is something violates it or not. If you are willing to be honest with yourself.
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that 'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law." Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
Who cares what some council says. What does the Bible say? You might have a point. I know what you are referring to, about making a likeness or something. I don't think that is a problem if you are not worshiping a statue. Show me the text and I would be happy to read it and see if it alters my opinion.
Interesting. I don't believe it though. How about quoting the text Jefferson was referring to. Jefferson was great but not perfect.
The Old testament says you should be killed for making graven (Old English word for engraved, carved, 3D) images. See the 10 Commandments. Seriously, for someone who comes across as some holy roller type you are ignorant of your own book of faith. The Second Commandment reads: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4)
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
The new "blackstone" isn't the same as it was back then from my understanding. I understand that many things have been changed. What I am mainly trying to say is that they have perverted the constitution with "precedents". Two that are quite obvious are "the interstate commerce clause" and the General welfare clause. Here let me give you an honesty test. Is the interstate commerce clause interpreted correctly through the precedents that the black asshole robes have established?
Jefferson was great but not perfect. "This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
Wherein the USCON does it so claim? That's your argument, afterall. For example you don't know what "no law" means. Then you spin it. That's a lie. I know exactly what NO LAW means. It means any law that is directly legislated or inferred from legislation that puts religion squarely in the public domain. I gave a perfect example of why your narrow [minded] interpretation is wholly against the spirit of the Framers' meaning. You wholly ignore the writings of Madison, who not only uses that same word "separation" but went so far as to even state that religious proclamations of the executive offend the 1st amendment as do chaplains in the legislature and military. The Framers wanted public discourse FREE from the BOUNDS of religion. Religion was a matter of the PRIVATE CONSCIENCE not PUBLIC. Here's a pop quiz...in 20 words or less, why did Virginia pass a religious freedom act in 1786?
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
See the 10 Commandments. Seriously, for someone who comes across as some holy roller type you are ignorant of your own book of faith. The Second Commandment reads: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4) First. I am talking about the government stopping people from doing what they want when they harm no one. Second. having a debate on graven images and how a christian should view that is a fine discussion to have. I would also add that Jesus came to the earth as a man. He was flesh and blood too like us. So as I see it right now, this wouldn't apply. I am not entrenched in this position by any means. I don't make graven images by the way. Taking what you said. An argument could be made that because of "church and state" the government is enforcing the 10 commandments and the statue should remain. That argument could be made. You know lawyers can argue anything.
Wherein the USCON does it so claim? That's your argument, afterall. Your argument is akin to me saying Obama can't be President because his name isn't in the constitution. Get a dictionary out and look up commerce. Then look up interstate. Then look up regulate. Then you will have the meaning of the interstate clause. It doesn't mean some African from Kenya can come here and make us buy healthcare. That is a huge stretch and if you are honest you will admit it.
Madison was a great man. But they didn't ratify the Federalist papers. Those were working documents that were discussed. Then the peoples representatives voted the actual constitution. Don't get me wrong they do shed light on certain things.
I know. That is "God" is carved in stone everywhere up there. The constitutions first phrase acknowledges God. Asking for a blessing. Blessings only come from God.
Be honest, that statue is put there as a way to influence or show the power of your particular faith over those of others. It is a statement of influence as much as anything else.
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
To show power. I don't think so, honestly. To have an influence..sure, so what.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That is some spin on your part equating the term blessing in the preamble with proof of a theocratic acceptance of the Constitution. I tell you what, I will accept that interpretation of the preamble by you if you accept that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution a pro activist govt with a pro welfare agenda (promote the general Welfare).
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
That statement makes 0 sense. What I am mainly trying to say is that they have perverted the constitution with "precedents". And you've provided 0 examples of why you believe this that is rooted in any sense of an objective standpoint. The only case that you have made is that it has been, in your opinion, "perverted" [sic] from the standpoint of your own biases. Here let me give you an honesty test. Is the interstate commerce clause interpreted correctly through the precedents that the black asshole robes have established? This Article I clause, inadvertantly, stands as a check against laissez faire capitalism which is why SCOTUS decisions are often under assault. Its intent was to maintain fair access among states and individuals transacting interstate to interstate conveyance and interstate movement of commodities to avoid monopolies. My answer to your question then, is no. On the other hand, were you to argue that the Congress, through legislation, and the executive, through regulation or adminstrative law, often misapply the legislative or adminstrative powers implicit in this clause, you'd get no disagreement from me.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
The "first phrase" of the USCON is "We the People"... That said, it makes quite clear what blessings they wished to secure....the blessings of LIBERTY.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Only if you have a second grader's sense of logic. Your argument is that since stare decisis isn't in the USCON so therefore it cannot be used as a means of deciding cases. You then claim that you can use a dictionary. I properly pointed out that method is not in the USCON either. Your turn. Get a dictionary out and look up commerce. Then look up interstate. Then look up regulate. Then you will have the meaning of the interstate clause. What you would have to "look up" for each and every one of those words is their 18th century definition. And trust me when I tell you that you would not like the 18th century definition of "regulate" - especially when it comes to 2A. "Regulate" in 18th century dictionaries had "correct by control" and "adjust into a standard purpose" as elements of its definition. And what is to stop you or me or Harvey Fuerstein from publishing our own dictionaries?
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
The preamble also states govt should take an activist role in promoting the general welfare of the people - yet I don't see A K A arguing for that kind of govt? What gives?
"This is what economic policy in the West has become--a tool of the wealthy used to enrich themselves by spreading poverty among the rest of the population." Paul Craig Roberts
The Federalist is contemporary to the USCON only and thus predates the Bill of Rights and explicitly argues the merits of Articles 1-VII only. IN fact, #84 argues against the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Jefferson was a big believer in that phrase being effective law. It's why he promoted uniform public education in the US and why he undertook the Louisiana Purchase.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
by leasing the small plot of land for the Jesus statue
#3. To: A K A Stone (#1)
I think the statue should stay. What about you?
#4. To: A K A Stone (#1)
#5. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
It should be moved to private land. It is a violation between church and state to allow any religion to place their icons on public land.
#6. To: Brian S (#2)
"It seems as though rent is being paid for the piece of ground the statue is on so I'm fine with it."
#7. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
Here in Eugene we had a huge cross that used to be downtown on Skinner's Butte, a hill overlooking city center.
#8. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
OK, now say islamic people want to rent another piece of public land for a statue to honor Allah and his prophet Mohammed. They would have to allow this to be fair.
#9. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
You can't favor one religion this way and not have others want to compete in this way.
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#4)
It is a violation between church and state to allow any religion to place their icons on public land.
#11. To: Ferret Mike (#6)
OK, now say islamic people want to rent another piece of public land for a statue to honor Allah and his prophet Mohammed. They would have to allow this to be fair.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#5)
"You're stupid or a liar."
#13. To: Brian S, Ferret Mike (#11)
Of course other religions should be afforded the same right on adjacent ground to rent and place their religious icons should they desire to do so.
#14. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
I've taken a 400 level course when getting my degree on the U.S. Supreme Court, and have read up on this issue. I have a well informed opinion.
#15. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
It just makes you look small and narrow minded.
#16. To: Brian S (#11)
#17. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
I am even against a Wicca shrine or icon on public land.
#18. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
The First Amendment calls for what is government to not favor one religion over another.
#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#20. To: master_of_disaster, Ferret Mike (#10)
Is it not a violation to teach children atheist views in public schools? We can't even say Merry Christmas anymore,we have to be inclusive of those that have no faith-Merry X-Mas Mr. President. When is this anti-Christian movement going to stop,does the statue burn your eyes sir?
#21. To: Ferret Mike (#19)
Why do you avoid commenting on the court ruling and instead rhetorically go for my jugular?
#22. To: Ferret Mike (#19)
Do you have an argument explaining why you think court rulings on separation between church and state in cases like this is erronious.
#23. To: Ferret Mike (#16)
#24. To: master_of_disaster (#23)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#24)
In a better world there would be no mosques in America or anywhere on earth.
#26. To: master_of_disaster (#25)
You know what's wrong with that statement? Jesus doesn't demand everyone follow him,he gave us a choice.
#27. To: master_of_disaster (#25)
I have no problem with other religions
#28. To: A K A Stone (#27)
You can't force people to accept the truth.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#18)
From the opinion of the 9th Federal Circuit Court,[8] the official history of this controversy is as follows:
#30. To: master_of_disaster (#25)
Im sick of all this negativity over people worshipping Christ openly. Congress would have us all praying in dark alleys.
#31. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
#32. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
Thus it is a message - speech that violates the First Amendment separation between church and state.
#33. To: Ferret Mike (#29)
And if the second option is taken, the fight over other religion's icons going up will make this a complex and very long situation to be dealt with.
#34. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan (#22)
#35. To: A K A Stone (#33)
"We made a mistake when we let non Christians immigrate here. We should have stuck with people with cultures like ours. Now some future generation is gong to have to wipe them out."
#36. To: A K A Stone (#33)
(Edited)
"Mike I'm going to have to call you a liar"
#37. To: Ferret Mike (#36)
By calling me a 'liar,' you are in fact saying any point of disagreement with you is a lie. thus if people don't robotically believe as you do, they are a liar living in a lie.
#38. To: Skip Intro (#37)
"You have captured the essence of Stone, except you left out that you're a baby murderer too."
#39. To: Brian S (#0)
"This has huge meaning for Americans. And if you aren't religious it has huge meaning as well," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, with the Madison, Wis.-based group. "If skiers think that it is cute, then put it up on private property. It is not cute to have a state religious association."
#40. To: master_of_disaster (#3)
Since when has it become okay for someone to be persecuted for their beliefs? I find the mosque being built on 9/11 sites way more agregious,but im a Christian I can't say that.Geesh
#41. To: A K A Stone (#24)
In a better world there would be no mosques in America or anywhere on earth.
#42. To: Ferret Mike (#34)
this statue impedes 'the free exercise of religion' by implying a preference of one religion over another by giving Christianity a spot to advertise and imply their faith is better then all others.
#43. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
So you favor a theocracy like we have in Iran,
#44. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
I'm sure many native Americans would agree with you about banning immigration and expelling religions not their own.
#45. To: Ferret Mike (#35)
But if they had done that from the start, where would it have left you Christians?
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#36)
Post #34 uses verbiage from the First Amendment to expound on my argument, and my opinion is no lie, it is an opinion.
#47. To: Skip Intro (#37)
By calling me a 'liar,' you are in fact saying any point of disagreement with you is a lie. thus if people don't robotically believe as you do, they are a liar living in a lie.
#48. To: buckeroo (#41)
In a better world there would be no mosques in America or anywhere on earth.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#48)
Wouldn't it be nice
Wouldn't it be nice
#50. To: buckeroo (#49)
#51. To: buckeroo (#49)
+ you have no conceptual picture of the REAL world.
#52. To: A K A Stone (#50)
#53. To: buckeroo (#52)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#53)
You would have understood what the words "In a better world"
meant.
#55. To: buckeroo (#54)
I saw that you deleted my earlier post and called me a "twit."
#56. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo (#55)
Sorry you are in such a foul mood tonight. Hope everything is ok.
#57. To: Murron (#56)
#58. To: buckeroo (#57)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
#60. To: buckeroo (#59)
#61. To: A K A Stone (#42)
"Still you refuse to quote from the first amendment to make your case. You spin and twist........in the wind."
#62. To: A K A Stone (#60)
this statue impedes 'the free exercise of religion' by implying a preference of one religion over another by giving Christianity a spot to advertise and imply their faith is better then all others.
#63. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo (#60)
Here. I'll help you keep your word.
#64. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
"Still you refuse to quote from the first amendment to make your case. You spin and twist........in the wind."
#65. To: Fred Mertz (#63)
What did you do? Ban buckeroo?
#66. To: Ferret Mike (#62)
#67. To: A K A Stone (#64)
#68. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
You repeatedly show you don't know much about how case law works and what a legal precedent is. So it's no surprise the meaning of the First Amendment seems to go over your head.
#69. To: Ferret Mike (#67)
It is pointless discussing this issue with you. As for the bait and insults, they have nothing to add to the discussion. There is no point in either of us engaging each other that way. It is just a waste of time, and it doesn't add anything to a dialog on anything.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#68)
(Edited)
Stare decisis (Anglo-Latin pronunciation: /Èst[Yri dhÈsajshs]) is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed."[1] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.[1]
#71. To: A K A Stone (#69)
"This is off topic. Stay on topic."
#72. To: Ferret Mike (#70)
stare decisis
#73. To: A K A Stone (#72)
"That isn't in the constitution. Unconstitutional."
#74. To: A K A Stone (#72)
That isn't in the constitution. Unconstitutional.
#75. To: Ferret Mike (#73)
#76. To: A K A Stone, Ferret Mike (#75)
#77. To: war (#74)
There's nothing in the USCON which establishes uniform rules of interpretation.
#78. To: A K A Stone, war (#74)
Blackstone, Commentaries of the Laws of England
#79. To: Godwinson (#76)
Three dimensional representations of Jesus are a heresy condemned by the Christian councils.
#80. To: Godwinson (#78)
#81. To: A K A Stone, war (#79)
What does the Bible say? You might have a point. I know what you are referring to, about making a likeness or something. I don't think that is a problem if you are not worshiping a statue. Show me the text and I would be happy to read it and see if it alters my opinion.
#82. To: war, Ferret Mike, Godwinson (#74)
The Framers make reference after reference to Blackstone and other, lesser legal authorities, in their deliberations:
#83. To: A K A Stone (#80)
Interesting. I don't believe it though. How about quoting the text Jefferson was referring to.
#84. To: A K A Stone (#77)
The constitution can be intrepreted with a dictionary.
#85. To: Godwinson (#81)
The Old testament says you should be killed for making graven (Old English word for engraved, carved, 3D) images.
#86. To: war (#84)
The constitution can be intrepreted with a dictionary.
#87. To: war (#84)
I gave a perfect example of why your narrow [minded] interpretation is wholly against the spirit of the Framers' meaning. You wholly ignore the writings of Madison, who not only uses that same word "separation" but went so far as to even state that religious proclamations of the executive offend the 1st amendment as do chaplains in the legislature and military.
#88. To: war (#84)
The Framers wanted public discourse FREE from the BOUNDS of religion. Religion was a matter of the PRIVATE CONSCIENCE not PUBLIC.
#89. To: A K A Stone, war (#87)
#90. To: Godwinson (#89)
Be honest, that statue is put there as a way to influence or show the power of your particular faith over those of others. It is a statement of influence as much as anything else.
#91. To: A K A Stone, war (#88)
The constitutions first phrase acknowledges God. Asking for a blessing. Blessings only come from God.
#92. To: A K A Stone (#82)
The new "blackstone" isn't the same as it was back then from my understanding. I understand that many things have been changed.
#93. To: A K A Stone (#88)
(Edited)
The constitutions first phrase acknowledges God. Asking for a blessing. Blessings only come from God.
#94. To: A K A Stone (#86)
Your argument is akin to me saying Obama can't be President because his name isn't in the constitution.
#95. To: war, A K A Stone (#94)
#96. To: A K A Stone (#87)
#97. To: Godwinson (#95)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]