Content Wrapper

[JimSmith]

Originally Posted by Bruce R.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
The two ACLU attorneys in Lexington are both retired Lt Colonels, one from the Marines and one from the Army. One [the Marine] has more medals than I can usually count because he is constantly gesticulating when in uniform and the other has a very nice presentation of medals that goes back from Viet Nam through Desert Storm.

And which of those two gentlemen were directly involved in this debacle? My guess is that neither one would have touched it with a 10 foot pole.

If they are actually ACLU attorneys I would bet you a burger and beer that you are wrong. The ACLU position on a case is based on whether the rights of larger groups of Americans are being threatened by a case, in the abstract, than the details of any particular case. You are still hung up on the particulars of this case and wish to dismiss the more abstract affront to the Constitution the situation represents. You want to argue an emotional case. The ACLU has washed away the emotion, which would include the emotions of the two medal wielding Lt. Colonels, in this case and has reduced it to the United States Government erecting a religious icon on public property at taxpayers expense. The case particulars, the emotional issues you argue, do nothing to dilute the basic affront to the principle of the government giving no endorsement to any specific religion.

ACLU fights for everyone's Constitutional rights. There is an old saying that says "your rights end where mine begin". It means that folks don't get to exercise their rights at the expense of others. When one set overshadows the rights of others, neutral wins.

That's the problem, where does it end? The monument was in place longer than the jerk that complained has been alive. One person is "offended" and the rest have to cater to that ONE individual? That is hard to swallow in what is supposed to be a democracy, of course if you can find a judge that sees things your way, things look different. You are aware that the ACLU always bring suit in areas where they know the judges are lean in their favor.


Our Democracy is tempered by the Constitution to moderate the propensity for mob rule. We have individual rights that trump simple majority decisions on specific subjects. This happens to be one of them. Because the government at times makes gross errors in respecting and observing those rights, like allowing white men to own black families and sell black humans like cattle, or denying women the right to vote, does not mean the error is somehow "grandfathered" and cannot be changed. Our history is uniquely marked by a people fixing such errors when they are brought to light. This problem will be resolved when we stop erecting icons of specific religions on publicly owned property - because once we stop, we won't have to have law suits that demand we take them down. As Ed suggested, someone needs to start a business going, buying land adjacent to such places where individual groups can erect whatever they might want to at their personal cost. Given how much bellyaching there is on this subject, it sounds like a very viable business.
And neutral includes the escalation of name-calling.

Particularly if moderation agrees with the escalator....

I am not a fan of escalators. Was told as a small kid the end of the moving section where the steps retracted could grab a small child's toes and just grind their feet and legs up. Don't trust escalators for that reason.

As for name calling, you suck at it compared to others, so it is likely in your best interests not to engage.

Jim