alt.education

On Sep 9, 9:56 pm, Richard Eich < ...@ > wrote:
> jrosenbl...@ wrote...
> > Richard Eich wrote:
>
> > > writing...@ wrote...
>
> > >>On Sep 9, 8:01 pm, Josh Rosenbluth
> > >>wrote:
>
> > >>>Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
> > >>>>On Sep 9, 7:36 pm, Josh Rosenbluth
> > >>>>wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>On Sep 9, 6:10 pm, Josh Rosenbluth
> > >>>>>>wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>On Sep 9, 5:30 pm, cpt banjo wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>On Sep 9, 4:13 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>>>So, having a cross on PRIVATE land is unconstitutional..right?
>
> > >>>>>>>>>If you would bother to actually read the case instead of continually
> > >>>>>>>>>spouting off about things you haven't a clue about, you'd find that
> > >>>>>>>>>under the particular circumstances of the case, the display of the
> > >>>>>>>>>cross was unconstitutional.
>
> > >>>>>>>>Yada Yada Yada...unconstitutional. Can you answer why a cross on
> > >>>>>>>>PRIVATE land is a government establishment of religion or not?
>
> > >>>>>>>The court ruled the land sale from public to private interests was a sham.
>
> > >>>>>>So, now, the government cannot even sell LAND to the religious? Does
> > >>>>>>this apply to land auctions of property the government forclosed
> > >>>>>>upon? Is it restricted to land only, or is the government banned from
> > >>>>>>selling broadcast licenses to the religious? In that case, the
> > >>>>>>government KNOWS they will be using the licenses for a religious
> > >>>>>>intent.
>
> > >>>>>Selling land to a religious group is fine. Selling land for the sole
> > >>>>>purpose of not having to take down a religious symbol (that had no
> > >>>>>secular purpose) that was on the land prior to the sale is what the
> > >>>>>court had problems with.
>
> > >>>>And...what's your court was still saying that the
> > >>>>government couldn't tell to the religious group. After the sale, the
> > >>>>land wasn't under government authority to decide..right?
>
> > >>>All of that has no bearing on whether the sale was a sham.
>
> > >>>>BTW, can we
> > >>>>take this a step further and decide why a cross on private land is a
> > >>>>violation of the 1st Amendment, but the National Cemetery in
> > >>>>Washington DC with many crosses is ok?
>
> > >>>The crosses in Arlington have a secular purpose (honoring the war dead).
> > >>> It could be argued that this cross did too (same purpose), but the
> > >>>facts in the case suggest otherwise, and the district court ruled that
> > >>>it did not have a secular purpose.
>
> > >>>Josh Rosenbluth
>
> > >>Sounds like a contradiction to me.
>
> > > Then the ACLU will work to force a reversal of the decision.
>
> > Huh? The ACLU won the case.
>
> I wasn't being serious about the ACLU; I was going for the knee-jerk
> spittle from the OP.
>
> My point was that if the decision was bad, it will be reversed. So
> he can stop whining about it, since he won't even read the case.

Don't worry. It will be. The 9th has a history of reversals. So,
even if the 9th agrees, the Supreme Court knows where it is coming
from.

Kenneth Clifton