How about another "Occupy" protest

[xUT]

Yea, you dillweeds need to change this too...

HERE RESTS IN
HONORED GLORY
AN AMERICAN
SOLDIER
KNOWN BUT TO GOD​

 

[Ms Tree]

I say renew the lease, grandfather in the existing statue and tell all others , "Sorry, but we no longer accept applications for statue parcels !" Wouldn't want to clutter up the property with unwanted eyesores !

I do not see anythign wrong with that so long as the lease is at fair market value and available to anyone who wants it.

Can I declare Jihad on yer ass Tree, for the above pic ? Crap! Guess not. I'm not a member of the peaceful religion of Islam !

First off the picture and proposed sculpture were of Jesus and not Mohamed so your religious reference is a bit off. Secondly, I thought you supported freedom and the COTUS so I do not know why you would want to prevent me from exercising the rights detailed in the COTUS. Third, I expected a bit more tolerance from a Christian but I guess that was too much to ask.

Since Arlington is on federal land, do you propose to erradicate the crosses and star of david from their headstones as well?

When do we start burning books that have a religious symbols in them?

B) xUT

Great, someone else unclear on the concept of the 14th amendment.

Religious headstone and marker symbols

Yea, you dillweeds need to change this too...

HERE RESTS IN
HONORED GLORY
AN AMERICAN
SOLDIER
KNOWN BUT TO GOD​

In a perfect world it never would have been written in the first place. I would like to see it removed but I do not think it should be. The fact that it is a resting place for a veterans of war in my opinion supersedes the religious conflict with the COTUS. Hopefully the vet was not a atheist and if he is, may be he has a sense of humor if there is a here after.

 

[delldude]

I guess the fact that religious services were held in the capitol rotunda is an egregious violation that wasn't seen as a separation issue? You know like the knots in your shorts, this separation issue has been perverted beyond belief by the progressive left.

 

[Ms Tree]

Right. That must be it. I am sure that if the religious services and icons being represented were not Christian but perhaps Hindu, Wicca, Muslim to mention a few you would be as equally content.

The 1st and 14th amendments are quite clear. The fact that the majority of society has violated the COTUS for so long does not make it right. The fact that the majority has been able to subvert the rights of the minorities and have the 'law' on their side in certain instances (Jim Crow laws, Separate but equal) also does not make it right. There is no compelling legal reason to have religious dogma mixed in with government. The only reason I can see that the Christians have for wanting their religious dogmas mixed in with government is for them to be able to exert dominance over the other religious beliefs in this nation.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Right. That must be it. I am sure that if the religious services and icons being represented were not Christian but perhaps Hindu, Wicca, Muslim to mention a few you would be as equally content.

The 1st and 14th amendments are quite clear. The fact that the majority of society has violated the COTUS for so long does not make it right. The fact that the majority has been able to subvert the rights of the minorities and have the 'law' on their side in certain instances (Jim Crow laws, Separate but equal) also does not make it right. There is no compelling legal reason to have religious dogma mixed in with government. The only reason I can see that the Christians have for wanting their religious dogmas mixed in with government is for them to be able to exert dominance over the other religious beliefs in this nation.

Not according to the Supreme's. Some of the more anti-faith decisions are slowly being reversed and often at the appellate level. Once again your hatred of those who don't conform to your standards comes shining through. Racism and bigotry seem to be your stock and trade.

Remember rights are granted to individuals, not groups.

 

[Ms Tree]

The SCOTUS also ruled in Plessy V Ferguson that separate and equal was in accordance with the COTUS. Not until Thurgood Marshall argued against and won in Brown V Board did that doctrine get reversed. Between Regan, Bush and Bush there have been countless conservative activist judges installed on the bench. I disagree with their interpretation of the COTUS. Looking back through history, there are plenty of examples where they higher and lower courts went with popular opinion as opposed to what the COTUS says.

Another fine example of the law at work would be the Scopes trial. The trial court was a farce, the State supreme court only set aside the verdict on a technicality relating to the penalty, not the verdict it's self.

Actually according to a more recent SCOTUS ruling, corporations are not considered in the same manner as an individual at least so far as campaign donations are concerned.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Next you'll be quoting the Cross of Gold speech of William Jennings Bryant. His speech and the Scopes trail are not very relevant or on point.

The reason you don't agree with the Supreme's is your outright and blatant hatred of religion particularly the Christian faith. It's obvious in nearly every post. Ditto for minorities.

Affirmative Action is the ultimate Liberal/Progressive ploy to make minorities THINK and Vote for Progressives but just so long as we don't let "them" in the Country Club. When you single out a group, any group for preferential treatment you are saying "You poor dumb ________ you're to stupid to make it on your own so we will dumb it down for you." Could there be anything more bigoted than such a public policy.

At least with the KKK you knew where you stood or in to many cases hung. With the Liberal/Progressive the black man is being played like a cheap fiddle and subjugated. He has no economic freedom to which the Progressive says "That's why we need Affirmative Action. That logic is like entrusting the Fox to guard the Hen House.

Oh and BTW there can be no such thing as "Gay Rights" as rights are conferred upon individuals not groups, which may be why you hate God since those rights I mentioned come directly from Him. You can look it up it's in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[tom barry]

(WOW, Some of you are making this TOO EASY for me, I mean....this is like shooting Fish in a Barrel ) !

southwindbag,......have you ever been to Whitefish Montana ? NO, I didn't think so !! I HAVE.
(actually it doesn't make a difference if you had or not. ) But let me TRY to enlighten YOU.

As your looking from behind that statue of JC the prophet, sorry, make that J the prophet, You can see that big lake there (That's named Flathead lake, southwind) And if you look REAL close you can see activity on the water,fishing etc. "THOSE PEOPLE" are called Indians. More specifically, Flathead Indians from the Flathead Indian TRIBE, who OWN 1/2 of flathead lake.

Want to know how they came to own 1/2 of Flathead lake southwindbag ? Well it goes like this ; Our Peacefull 🙄 United States Government, in A N O T H E R "removeal" Battle that took the lives of WOMEN and CHILDREN, "removed" the Flatheads off of THIER land...........which included (calvary drum roll please) BIG MOUNTAIN, and then later on .......Presto ChangeO a statue of J the prophet arrives !!

Now I've got to back over the whole topic to Read about the Impending Islamic "Conquerors" 🙄

(Except for Ms Tree,)...................... How APROPOS !

 

[Ms Tree]

My mentioning Scope had less to do with the content of tbe trial as it did with the fact that course make decisions that are not based on law but on popular opinion. So the fact that some court cases are going against Wet I belive is quite clear in the COTUS does not change What the COTUS says.

The term Gay rights is just one that the media has coined. If you look at the laws that are trying to be reversed and if you look at the actuall legal arguments being raised against them you will see that the legal argument is based on equal access and treatment by the law. There is no mention of "gay rights".

Bottom line regarding the statue is that it is on Federal land. It violates the 1st and 14th amendment in my opinion.

 

[southwind]

That was my whole point "TREE" !

If you had been exercising your right to free speech with a picture of Muhammad with a phallus mounted on his forehead an Islamist probably would have issued a Jihad on yer ass !

I believe you may say whatever you want to because of those rights and me , being a Christian, will not issue a Holy War on yer ass, even though I think you have bad taste !

BTW..............listening to a radio show today, the host made the comment that the majority of "Your" newer Liberal/Atheist peeps , seem to be single white females.........................did he hit the nail on the head ! :blink:

 

[Ms Tree]

I do not understand your link between a Jihad and the topic we are discussing.

Not sure where the talk host is getting his numbers and I have not conducted known poll so I have no idea what the make up is of any party.

 

[Ms Tree]

I do not understand your link between a Jihad and the topic we are discussing.

Not sure where the talk host is getting his numbers and I have not conducted known poll so I have no idea what the make up is of any party.

 

[tom barry]

Southwind,....No Comment on MY post of 1:12 today ? Hmmm !

 

[SparrowHawk]

My mentioning Scope had less to do with the content of tbe trial as it did with the fact that course make decisions that are not based on law but on popular opinion. So the fact that some court cases are going against Wet I belive is quite clear in the COTUS does not change What the COTUS says.

The term Gay rights is just one that the media has coined. If you look at the laws that are trying to be reversed and if you look at the actuall legal arguments being raised against them you will see that the legal argument is based on equal access and treatment by the law. There is no mention of "gay rights".

Bottom line regarding the statue is that it is on Federal land. It violates the 1st and 14th amendment in my opinion.

Here's an argument for you.

Declaration of Independence states that rights are conferred by God (Creator), on this there is no dispute. It then follows that those who drafted the COTUS used the rights conferred by God when drafting the document. Therefore a belief in God was established by the very nature of where the founding Fathers believed rights came from. Ergo, God in the abstract context of the word, not referring to any specific religion was instrumental in the formation of our nation and the Freedom & Liberty of it's citizens to live as they choose.

To me if you have no belief in a God head of some sort then who conferred these rights upon you? Santa Claus? It is hypocritical to demand the rights conferred upon you by God if you have no belief that God exists.

 

[delldude]

Southwind,....No Comment on MY post of 1:12 today ? Hmmm !

My link