ACLU Tries to Remove Cross-Shaped Headstones from Federal Cemetaries...

[Mr Manifesto]

...not (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp).

You have to laugh at the religious dingbats who feel threatened because the ACLU wants a clear deliniation between church and state. Note to kooks: the reason your congregations aren't what they used to be is not because of the ACLU.

[subgenius]

"I said it once before, but it bears repeating" (Jack White):
We rail, rightfully so, against countries that are run by religions, and then many of us want us to be like them.

[corplinx]

I guess this begs the question, has anyone heard of this particular urban legend before reading about it on snopes?

[Tony]

Just curious, but would anybody support the ACLU if they tried to remove the headstones?

[Dancing David]

Removing headstones, would the aclu support that.
Hmmm , probably not, now what I want a headstone shaped like a pentangle, and a graveyard wont't let me have. That would be the very speech thing.

I don't think crosses in graveyards are against free speech , because they supposed to reflect the individual beliefs of the dearly departed.

Now, What if you are an atheist and someone buries you under a cross?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Now, What if you are an atheist and someone buries you under a cross?
If I were dead I wouldn't care. If I were alive I'd have serious objections.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony
Just curious, but would anybody support the ACLU if they tried to remove the headstones?

I would support anyones right to "try" to do anything using legal methods. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with them.

This is a hypothetical question.... The original urban legend is an example of disinformation used to attempt to discredit.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool


I would support anyones right to "try" to do anything using legal methods.


So you'd support someone's right to try to legally impose slavery?

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Tony
Just curious, but would anybody support the ACLU if they tried to remove the headstones?

No.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony



So you'd support someone's right to try to legally impose slavery?

I'll say it again. I would support anyones right to "try" to do anything using legal processes. I'm making a huge assumption here but I think slavery is no longer legal in the USA? Is this correct? If my assumption is true then I think anyone trying to reintroduce it would be wasting thier time.....

would you oppose anyones rights to try and change the law (or anything else) using legal processes tony?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

would you oppose anyones rights to try and change the law (or anything else) using legal processes tony?

It depends on what the change is.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


It depends on what the change is.

Its not an issue of if you support the change or not Tony......Its about supporting the right to seek change through legal methods. That is what I said in the first place and that is what you are still trying to grasp.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool


Its about supporting the right to seek change through legal methods. That is what I said in the first place and that is what you are still trying to grasp.

And I support that, but what you cant seem to grasp is that I support that on a case-by-case basis. It depends on what the "change" is. And no, that support is not based on weather or not I agree with the change.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


And I support that, but what you cant seem to grasp is that I support that on a case-by-case basis. It depends on what the "change" is. And no, that support is not based on weather or not I agree with the change.

Huh? For example consider a situation where a legally elected senator introduces legislation to repeal the 13th amendment.

Now, I wouldn't vote for that senator ever again, and I'd never vote for any senator that voted for the proposal. I and many others would likely campaign against the legislation.

However, I'd conceed the senator's basic right to introduce that legislation, as well as other people's rights to campaign in support of the legislation. It would be improper if the senator or his supporters were denied the right to bring about change through legal means.

That is the distinction. On one hand the legislation is not supported, but the right of others to try to within the law bring change is recognized. There is no case by case basis; the attempt to bring change is judged by procedure, not content, and since The Fool is talking about change by legally proper means, what type of change is irrelevent.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


There is no case by case basis...


Maybe in application, but we're talking about personal beliefs. I would not support someone's right to legally re-introduce slavery. Do I think such a person should go to jail? No. Should they have the freedom to voice that opinion? Yes. But they cross the line when they actively try to enslave other human beings.

And don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t support any legislation that tried to take said right away because I know how such legislation could be abused at a later date. This is strictly a personal opinion.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony



Maybe in application, but we're talking about personal beliefs. I would not support someone's right to legally re-introduce slavery. Do I think such a person should go to jail? No. Should they have the freedom to voice that opinion? Yes. But they cross the line when they actively try to enslave other human beings.

So are you going to vote agaist it, or are you saying that that person has no right to legally try to bring about that outcome through the means laid out in the constitution via Article V? Art. V only expressly prohibits amendments that strip a state of equal Sufferage in the Senate absent that state's consent. It also prevents certain sections from being amended until 1808. It gives no other restrictions.

You say they cross a line when they try to reintroduce slavery. How does this differ from simply resisting the measure through legal means. Does this "line" being crossed entitle you to take further measures, or are you just saying that you really don't like it?

Say the measure somehow passes, and slavery becomes legal. I guess you would then feel justified in making war against the U.S. and it's constitution by resisting the duly passed laws. I would as well, but that is a big difference from denying others from pursuing such a goal by legal means. The problem with restricting that is that is basically nullifies the concept of free government when things are placed as being beyond debate and consideration. You want to put slavery beyond consideration. Somebody else wants to put repealing the 2nd amendment beyond consideration, and so on. No way to tell what should really be beyond the pale. If the government does something you dislike you have every right to leave, or of course revolt, but be sure the government will regard you as an enemy and shoot back.

[The Fool]

Suddenly..
I don't know if there is much point in explaining this over and over to tony. He can't tell the difference between supporting peoples rights to seek change and supporting or not supporting the particular change. It appears that he feels that only those that agree with him should have access to legal process.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony
Just curious, but would anybody support the ACLU if they tried to remove the headstones?

No because, as the article says, the decision to use cross shaped headstones is that of the family, not the government.

Now if the government decreed that ALL soldiers, regardless of faith (or lack thereof) had to be buried with cross shaped headstones, I would bea gainst that. That isn't the governments choice to make.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool
Suddenly..
I don't know if there is much point in explaining this over and over to tony. He can't tell the difference between supporting peoples rights to seek change and supporting or not supporting the particular change. It appears that he feels that only those that agree with him should have access to legal process.

Please give-up the strawman arguments.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


So are you going to vote agaist it, or are you saying that that person has no right to legally try to bring about that outcome through the means laid out in the constitution via Article V? Art. V only expressly prohibits amendments that strip a state of equal Sufferage in the Senate absent that state's consent. It also prevents certain sections from being amended until 1808. It gives no other restrictions.

You say they cross a line when they try to reintroduce slavery. How does this differ from simply resisting the measure through legal means. Does this "line" being crossed entitle you to take further measures, or are you just saying that you really don't like it?

Say the measure somehow passes, and slavery becomes legal. I guess you would then feel justified in making war against the U.S. and it's constitution by resisting the duly passed laws. I would as well, but that is a big difference from denying others from pursuing such a goal by legal means. The problem with restricting that is that is basically nullifies the concept of free government when things are placed as being beyond debate and consideration. You want to put slavery beyond consideration. Somebody else wants to put repealing the 2nd amendment beyond consideration, and so on. No way to tell what should really be beyond the pale. If the government does something you dislike you have every right to leave, or of course revolt, but be sure the government will regard you as an enemy and shoot back.


I thought I articulated my position earlier. What about it do you not understand?

Maybe in application, but we're talking about personal beliefs. I would not support someone's right to legally re-introduce slavery. Do I think such a person should go to jail? No. Should they have the freedom to voice that opinion? Yes. But they cross the line when they actively try to enslave other human beings.

And don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t support any legislation that tried to take said right away because I know how such legislation could be abused at a later date. This is strictly a personal opinion.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


Please give-up the strawman arguments.

Actually Tony, I think Suddenly and The Fool make some good points that you still haven't addressed in any reasonable way. I still don't get much of a sense about your stance on whether or not some groups should have the right to use legal means to achieve something you don't agree with.
If the ACLU did try and get the Federal cemetaries to remove cross-shaped headstones, I certainly wouldn't support that. But, I surely would recognize that they have the right to use legal means to achieve something they believe in. Isn't that the way a free society works?

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG

If the ACLU did try and get the Federal cemetaries to remove cross-shaped headstones, I certainly wouldn't support that. But, I surely would recognize that they have the right to use legal means to achieve something they believe in.

Desecrating graves ( a long with a handful of other things) is crossing the line, but that is a personal opinion. I'll say again, like I said before ( I guess you missed that part :rolleyes: ), I wouldn’t support legislation that would make campaigning for such things illegal.

Isn't that the way a free society works?

A free society doesn’t impose slavery or desecrate graves for political purposes.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


Desecrating graves ( a long with a handful of other things) is crossing the line, but that is a personal opinion. I'll say again, like I said before ( I guess you missed that part :rolleyes: ), I wouldn’t support legislation that would make campaigning for such things illegal.



A free society doesn’t impose slavery or desecrate graves for political purposes.

Exactly. Which is why one would hope that a reasonable and free society would never allow any group to impose conditions on gravesites such as the fictional scenario presented in the article at the start of this thread. I have enough faith in our system (I use our system even though I'm in Canada since things are quite similar to the USA here), that I'm not to worried that such a law would get passed. But, like you, I would support the ACLU's right to petition for such legislation. So, I guess we are on the same page here.
(Of course, let's not forget in all of this that the ACLU did NOT try and remove cross-shaped headstones from Federal Cemetaries)

And by the way, :rolleyes: yourself. (anyone else think the :rolleyes: get overused. But I suppose that's a topic for another thread)

[Tony]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Exactly. Which is why one would hope that a reasonable and free society would never allow any group to impose conditions on gravesites such as the fictional scenario presented in the article at the start of this thread. I have enough faith in our system (I use our system even though I'm in Canada since things are quite similar to the USA here), that I'm not to worried that such a law would get passed. But, like you, I would support the ACLU's right to petition for such legislation. So, I guess we are on the same page here.
(Of course, let's not forget in all of this that the ACLU did NOT try and remove cross-shaped headstones from Federal Cemetaries)


So WTF? If we are on the same page, how come you said:

Actually Tony, I think Suddenly and The Fool make some good points that you still haven't addressed in any reasonable way.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony


So WTF? If we are on the same page, how come you said:



Because you said:

I wouldn’t support legislation that would make campaigning for such things illegal.

I think that statement reflects your agreement that a group like the ACLU would, theoretically, have the right to use legal means to remove cross-shaped headstones from Federal Cemetaries, even though you obviously don't agree with the actual removal.
Perhaps you mentioned this earlier and I missed it. I sometimes skim through threads as I'm sure do you.
So sue me!;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Tony


Please give-up the strawman arguments.
Lol...strawman? Do you even read what you type yourself?

In the face of REPEATED explainations of a simple point you continue to fail to comprehend......

[UnrepentantSinner]

Re: thread title.

For the record, you can't get a cross shaped headstone (or Star of David) for that matter. If you're going into a VA cemetary, which is what I suppose is meant by "federal," you get 1 type of upright marker, 2 flat and one for burial niches.
http://www.cem.va.gov/hmtype.htm

There are however 35 approved symbols that can be used on the markers.
http://www.cem.va.gov/hmemb.htm

My dad is buried in the cremains section of the D-FW National Cemetery. He's got a Christian Church symbol on his marker and within a few places of him are a Buddhist, a Mormon and an Atheist.

If anything these days the expression of religion by the individual is more free than it was in years past.

[Graham]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Re: thread title.

For the record, you can't get a cross shaped headstone (or Star of David) for that matter. If you're going into a VA cemetary, which is what I suppose is meant by "federal," you get 1 type of upright marker, 2 flat and one for burial niches.
http://www.cem.va.gov/hmtype.htm

There are however 35 approved symbols that can be used on the markers.
http://www.cem.va.gov/hmemb.htm

My dad is buried in the cremains section of the D-FW National Cemetery. He's got a Christian Church symbol on his marker and within a few places of him are a Buddhist, a Mormon and an Atheist.

If anything these days the expression of religion by the individual is more free than it was in years past.

So what's the picture of in the OP link?

Graham

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Graham


So what's the picture of in the OP link?

Graham

Probably one of the American Battle Monuments Commission (http://www.abmc.gov/abmc1.htm) Cemetaries overseas from the WWI or WWII era.

It looks similar to the Aisne-Marne one.
http://www.abmc.gov/am1w.jpg

VA cemetaries in the US are governed by the rules I cited above. Arlington National Cemetary is governed by the Dept. of the Army, but still has the headstones shaped like the VA ones.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol...strawman? Do you even read what you type yourself?

In the face of REPEATED explainations of a simple point you continue to fail to comprehend......

This is a strawman:

It appears that he feels that only those that agree with him should have access to legal process.


Of course I wouldn’t expect a person that doesn’t know the difference between religion and race to understand the complexities and nuances of my position, so Ill cut you a little slack. :)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


Of course I wouldn’t expect a person that doesn’t know the difference between religion and race to understand the complexities and nuances of my position, so Ill cut you a little slack. :)

OK. Lets make this simple.

Simple question. Do you believe a person should be prevented from using legally prescribed means to bring about a change in the country's laws based on the substance of the proposed change?

There isn't a whole lot of gray area here, so this by definition is a yes or no question. If you answer "maybe, depending on the change," then you are saying that you would deny access to the legal process based on the content of a person's ideas. No means just that, that regardless of the idea that person has a right to present it if done by legal means.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Suddenly


OK. Lets make this simple.

Simple question. Do you believe a person should be prevented from using legally prescribed means to bring about a change in the country's laws based on the substance of the proposed change?

There isn't a whole lot of gray area here, so this by definition is a yes or no question. If you answer "maybe, depending on the change," then you are saying that you would deny access to the legal process based on the content of a person's ideas. No means just that, that regardless of the idea that person has a right to present it if done by legal means.

suddenly...
Tony's usual action is to type "strawman" and run..... I don't think there is any point in us explaining it to him over and over. He calls my statement a strawman when it is precisely his stated position... I think he realises this, so I doubt if you will see a further appearance of Mr T in this thread, unless its just to drop by and type "strawman"

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by The Fool


suddenly...
Tony's usual action is to type "strawman" and run..... I don't think there is any point in us explaining it to him over and over. He calls my statement a strawman when it is precisely his stated position... I think he realises this, so I doubt if you will see a further appearance of Mr T in this thread, unless its just to drop by and type "strawman"

I'm hoping for a "false dilemma" claim that his position is complex and actually is somewhere in a gray area. Then he will tell me that I don't understand his position. I guess this will help him avoid admitting he is wrong or that pehaps he has a few fascist beliefs.

Such a "false dilemma" charge would be groundless of course, as when dealing with a categorically absolute statement there can be no gray areas. If the claim is all A's are blue, then as soon as the words "except when" or "depends" are used, then the statement is false, as there is some "A" somewhere that is not blue.

I was hoping maybe he'd diversify his baseless accusations of logical fallacies. I always chuckle when someone makes such an accusation without explaining why, as is essence they are making a labeling argument which is in and of itself a fallacy. They are simply declaring an argument to be invalid with no argument to support the conclusion.

[Tony]

I’ve already explained my position. What about it do you not understand? Fool's simplistic mischaracterization is typical for him, I expect him to misunderstand anything above 5th grade level. But I think you should be able to understand this Suddenly. I ask again, specifically, what about my position do you not understand?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
I’ve already explained my position. What about it do you not understand? Fool's simplistic mischaracterization is typical for him, I expect him to misunderstand anything above 5th grade level. But I think you should be able to understand this Suddenly. I ask again, specifically, what about my position do you not understand?

You seem to my understanding to be a bit "Clintonesque" in that you want it both ways. Here is a simple yes or no question to clarify things:


Do you believe a person should ever be prevented from using legally prescribed means to bring about a change in the country's laws based on the substance of the proposed change?

Note the word "ever" and the phrase "based on the substance."

It appears to me you have answered yes but try to justify that answer somehow. This is different than a "no" answer. In my opinion any answer not "no" is a rejection of the rule of law, and rejection of the rule of law is the cornerstone of tyranny.

In short, if you want to be clear, answer yes or no to the question, and if you answer "yes" try to explain (if you would like) how you are not rejecting the rule of law. Then I will point out why you are mistaken. It is also possible I will recognize that I am mistaken, but that will take a little more substance than cries of "strawman."

I mainly want to establish agreement or disagreement with the concept proposed in the yes or no question. If you answer "no," then we agree. If you have some other answer we do not agree. It is that simple.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Do you believe a person should ever be prevented from using legally prescribed means to bring about a change in the country's laws based on the substance of the proposed change?


NO, again, I made this clear earlier in the thread.

It appears to me you have answered yes but try to justify that answer somehow.

No I didn’t, I just said that, personally, I think some things cross the line. I admit, the list of the "some things" is small. Slavery and desecration of graves are two of those things. As is campaigning for a law to curb the first amendment.

This is different than a "no" answer. In my opinion any answer not "no" is a rejection of the rule of law, and rejection of the rule of law is the cornerstone of tyranny.

I reject the myth of the "rule of law". We live under the rule of force or rule of men.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


NO, again, I made this clear earlier in the thread.

No I didn’t, I just said that, personally, I think some things cross the line. I admit, the list of the "some things" is small. Slavery and desecration of graves are two of those things. As is campaigning for a law to curb the first amendment.

I take this to mean that you would not prevent them access, but you wouldn't do it with a smile on your face and a song in your heart. As far as that goes I'd agree. I guess it is also possible you are hedging your "no" answer by saying "except in these certain areas." In that case you are not grasping something here, as that means the answer was that you would ever prevent access.

I reject the myth of the "rule of law". We live under the rule of force or rule of men.

Now this is a bit odd. "Rule of Law" is the basic philosophic principle that laws are not to be arbitrary. This is pretty much the cornerstone that the U.S. Constitution rests upon.

It isn't a question of what we have, rather a question of what we mean to be and seek to be. It is one thing to recognize that we largely in practice live in a country govened by the "rule of force or the rule of men," it is another thing to consider such rule a good thing. The former makes you a realist, the latter makes you a fascist.