Township board gets earful over cross’ future along Lake Michigan
LUDINGTON, Mich. — The Pere Marquette Township Board will wait for legal counsel before deciding the fate of a cross honoring Fr. Jacques Marquette.
More than 200 people attended a special meeting Tuesday night at Peterson Auditorium in Ludington. A steady stream of citizens voiced opinions as to whether the monument on Lakeshore Drive should remain at its present site, overlooking Pere Marquette Lake. The consensus of the crowd: the cross should stay.
Courtesy: Ludington Daily News
While Marquette died in the Ludington area and was originally buried there, his remains were moved to the St. Ignace area, the home of the Father Marquette National Memorial.
Groups like the Michigan Association of Civil Rights say the cross is unconstitutional, but some locals say it’s more than a religious symbol that also serves as a reference point for boaters and fishermen on the lake. Earlier this month, FOX 17 reached out to the Michigan Association of Civil Rights Activists for comment, and spokesman Mitch Kahle responded with the following statement:
“There’s nothing new in this case until the township board votes on the matter. Based on the facts and legal precedent, we encourage the township board to take action that removes the offending cross but maintains the existing masonry structure and plaque. The township has other options, of course, but this would be a simple, reasonable, fair-minded, and virtually cost-free solution that would satisfy complainants and the law.”
Pere Marquette Township Supervisor thanked those who spoke for sharing their concerns and comments. The concluding statement:
“I can see by the turnout and by listening to the voices out there, that this issue is deeply personal to many individuals. We, as a board, understand and appreciate this. We are committed to finding a solution or direction that is not only in the best interest of our township, but in the best interest of the Father Marquette memorial. Again, we’ve got a lot of factors and a lot of options to consider and we thank you – thank you for being patient. Thank you for giving the township Board of Trustees tonight an opportunity to hear it.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
The rich bitch is also pushing for charter schools over public schools. Money is also going to those charter schools which should go to public education.
She destroyed the school system in parts of Michigan with her charter school shit - profits over education!
'They're very nice folks, but don't cross them. If he's not careful, no one will speak with him, no one will hire him or do business with him. If he parks his car or goes even one mile over the limit, he will get a ticket and the judge will NOT be understanding.
How nice of them!
'it's a voucher program. you actually read this hysteria and believe it?....explains a lot.'
It's not hysteria - it's what the rich bitch has been doing and will continue to do so.
Those vouchers are no good if the underprivileged cannot get into the school(s).
Most of these uptight people act like they want to return to the 1950s Ward and June Cleaver.
While not a small part of the male population is likely trolling the public toilets for hook-ups or molesting children.
IOW, the "good Christians" of the community will show their true nature
Why on Earth would they voluntarily associate with someone who has chosen, through both his words and actions, to publicly proclaim himself to be their enemy? I get along quite well with religious people, even the ones who know me to be an Agnostic. Why? Because I don't push my beliefs on them and they do the same with me. Since they do no harm, why go into a hate tantrum like a small child? Non belief in religion does not equate to despising those who do believe. That would simply be an expression of unthinking hate combined with an ego that is out of control.
The reason a "dirtbag" can do this is called the United States Constitution, specifically the first amendment to it. Seems to be dirtbag would be better applied to people who are happy to violate our Constitution than to people who revere it.
The reason a "dirtbag"
If you spend your life trolling for crosses up and down Lake Michigan, I guess the term would apply. This isn't his first rodeo.
This isn't his first rodeo.
And it won't be his last despite the "washed-in-the-blood" threats and reprisals. He's a true patriot and defender of the Constitution of the United States of America something that his enemies absolutely have no regard for.
This Mitch Kahle has been causing all kinds of problems on the coast of Lake Michigan
I expect that the same can be said of Father Marquette, there are people whose lives were shattered by his passage into their homeland.
perhaps...but that is not the reason the jerk wants it removed.
do you have some proof of your accusation of the Father?
I expect that the same can be said of Father Marquette, there are people whose lives were shattered by his passage into their homeland.
Actually ED, Marquette and the other French missionaries were considered to be a major problem in North America all right, but by the French government and the fur traders in the area. While they did do conversion, their main purpose was to suppress the widespread cheating and liquor trade carried on by French government agents and the fur trading companies. The government of New France hated their guts and did everything they could to keep them out, mostly because the government officials were on the take from the fur traders. Try learning a little history (you may find that it's actually interesting). The missionaries who came to North America in the 1600's were not a monolithic group. Your attitude about missionaries in general is quite true of the ones from Spain, partially true about the ones from England and not true of the ones from France. The French missionaries were actually the good guys in that situation, trying to protect the local Indian population from exploitation. For the most part, they failed.
All statues, monuments, and the like that now exist on public property should stay and be maintained but no new ones made.
sounds like a good compromise
Maintaining unconstitutional religious monuments on public property is never a good compromise. Compromising the Constitution is the road to hell for our secular Republic. And putting a limit on any new such monuments would also violate the both the 1st and 14th amendments to that Constitution. If christian monuments are going to continue to be present then a new one by the Church of Satan or any and all other religious ones MUST also be allowed.
Doesn't that create a very uneven playing field as there was a huge head start by one team, while in many cases I might agree ultimately the law is the law and needs to be respected. Fairness would dictate that either they come down or anyone that wishes can put one up. I know that if you are building without a permit and finish the project unchallenged it is allowed to stand, if it is intercepted while under construction it is red flagged and activity ceases, seems almost game like.
ultimately the law is the law and needs to be respected.
Give statues the same amnesty some want for those who violated immigration laws
Give statues the same amnesty some want for those who violated immigration laws
The statues aren't being deported, destroyed or hidden from public view. They are being moved to private property, where religious display is protected. Nobody is trying to ban religion in any way. They are just enforcing the separation of church and state as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
OK, lets also move all illegal aliens to another country
It has been there a long time but if it has to go so do they
Give statues the same amnesty some want for those who violated immigration laws
Peel back every libertarian far enough and you'll find a standard rightwinger 95% of the time.
Agreed but i'm sure both side of this debate will continue to hack away at each in perpetuity.
The guy doing the bitching in this case sounds like he needs to get laid really bad!
The guy doing the bitching in this case sounds like he needs to get laid really bad!
Well, he should be rewarded in some way at least for demanding adherence to our Constitution.
No problem, i can reward his sanctimonious BS with a nice warm glass of "shut the hell up" or if he prefer a nice cool cup of "don't let the door hit you in the ass."
When you find a real threat to our constitution let me know. I'll be happy to volunteer to defend it again.
When you find a real threat to our constitution let me know.
Donald Trump and, the Republicans.
Not according to your average bear.
I'll keep waiting for a real threat.
That's why bears can't vote. I do expect you would defend the Constitution if and only if you agreed with the argument. Law is funny that way, even if you don't like the premise it is judged in the applicability of law, no contortions, judgments, or determining how it fits into someone's religious sensibilities. That is why the wording is critical. The cross is a violation plain and simple, should it stand due to historical significance, that alone might be the argument but when it becomes a religious argument then the favor should shift to removal.
Perhaps a statue of the good man, painted white will suffice the boaters, et al.
Nothing should be removed.... all this crap removing statues or whatever because people’s feelings are getting hurt is out of control. Sad that some state and local governments cannot get a handle on this. But of course some states are opposite like the above comments, having Stalin statues blah blah blah... asinine.
AR
Something that Stalin himself said back in the '30's AR. "If you wish to destroy a society, first destroy all their icons" The KGB passed that knowledge along to the anti-war types back in the early '70's. Looks like some of them listened.
This city has decided to not cave at the first whine. They plan on fighting back in court. They have some heavy lifters behind them also.
thats some good news, I hope it works out
all this crap removing statues or whatever because people’s feelings are getting hurt is out of control.
You can try to divert and trivialize this CONSTITUTIONAL violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment as hurt feelings but it just shows how little regard you have for our fundamental law. It was specifically aimed to prevent people like you from assuming you're free to shove your beliefs down the throats of people who don't share them.
Stop making accusations towards members or leave.
Isnt there a statue of Stalin by Seattle?
It is a statue of Lenin and it's privately owned and on private property.
A rally was held Wednesday at the Lenin statue — privately owned and on private property — by people wearing President Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” T-shirts and hats. A man with a bullhorn called the statue an, “Idol of evil.”
This seems to be something these bible-thumping god-botherers just can't seem to grasp.
Remove the cross and replace it with a bust of the man that it is supposed to memorialize.
Groups like the Michigan Association of Civil Rights say the cross is unconstitutional, but some locals say it’s more than a religious symbol that also serves as a reference point for boaters and fishermen on the lake. Earlier this month, FOX 17 reached out to the Michigan Association of Civil Rights Activists for comment, and spokesman Mitch Kahle responded with the following statement:
Erect a pole with a light on it, if it is a navigation point for boaters and fisherman.
Don't let the law get in your way unless it represents something that offends you. We have a similar cross in a state park honoring a conquistador. While his undertaking was extraordinary, he personified attributes that are horrendous by any civilized standard. Taking a historical perspective that that was the known embarkation point is one thing, revering him as an honorable hero of the world not so much, he was on a mission of personal enrichment and the forced conversion to his religion. Subtle attempts to accomplish the same end are attempted every day. The cross does not symbolize the man, it is a symbol of his religion, notice they didn't use his national heritage instead.
Groups like the Michigan Association of Civil Rights say the cross is unconstitutional, but some locals say it’s more than a religious symbol that also serves as a reference point for boaters and fishermen on the lake. Earlier this month, FOX 17 reached out to the Michigan Association of Civil Rights Activists for comment, and spokesman Mitch Kahle responded with the following statement:
I was trying to solve the issue that some use that cross as a navigational waypoint.
It's not like Native Americans didn't have a religion of their own, with a belief in a supreme as the Creator, Great Spirit, or whatever name they had for their maker. Their thinking that anyone who did not believe in their own manner of belief were godless heathens was truly ignorance on their part, as well as arrogance.
It's not like Native Americans didn't have a religion of their own, with a belief in a supreme as the Creator, Great Spirit, or whatever name they had for their maker.
And, in every way superior to this atheist's mind (for what it's worth). We know Native Americans fought each other over various things before the invasion but I suspect religion wasn't one of them. That alone would make their faith superior to almost all the other world religions--the major ones, at least.
I waiting for the day that, due to the zeal of some people, they will demand that the 13th hand be removed from the Iwo Jima Flag Raising memorial statues or the whole statues be removed from Arlington Cemetary and anywhere else that replicas have been located if they are on public property.
Is that memorial a religious one? Simply having an element does not make it overtly worshiping any ones deity. Making the analogy is commensurate to making a diaper shot in a pro basketball game,skirting the CoC [ph]
During my lifetime, for many decades, nobody saw religious symbolism on public property as a problem, but then all of a sudden, people are going nuts about it, protesting, marching with posters, starting lawsuits, totally overzealous about such insignificance - so why SHOULDN'T I contrive such a prediction. You found a clever way to insult me. Thank you.
Consider the source Buzz.
You are spot on and those who are causing the issue are going to fight it with all their sophomoric intensity. Which is substantial in some.
SOSDD
For many CENTURIES there were accepted practices that were not perceived as a problem in fact they were celebrated, in the rear view mirror they were often despicable and horrendous, objecting to those accepted practices was a sure way to shorten ones lifespan. times change and along with that an awareness of what is and what is not a good fit for society. The idea that we always did it this way doesn't hold water. One can cling as tightly as they wish to whatever supernatural beliefs they wish, I have no problem with that in fact I would fight to protect that right, but when it is presumed that the belief in god, trolls, tommyknockers, elves, gnomes or any other invisible creatures should have standing in the public sphere then ti can and should get called out. Sorry you are so easily dented, you don't ever seem to retract from speaking your mind, nor do I.
And resisted by many whose elementary perspective is sorely lacking in maturation. I am politically a moderate and to the far right that makes me an ultra left wacked libtard, laugh material, because I too look at the source and lets face it when it comes to the far right there is no end point.
Honestly, i'm not sure what point you're trying to make with that post.
Suffice it to say that "moderate" is a very subjective topic when it comes to politics. One persons moderate is another persons extremist.
That would be very sad Buzz. At some point people will say enough.
or even grow up.
not expecting it.
They are and that is what has you spooled up!
I waiting for the day that, due to the zeal of some people, they will demand that the 13th hand be removed from the Iwo Jima Flag Raising memorial statues or the whole statues be removed from Arlington Cemetary and anywhere else that replicas have been located if they are on public property.
How is the bronze Iwo Jima memorial in any way religious? It isn't going anywhere, despite your paranoia.
The myth of the 13th hand, is that it's God's hand......hence a religious aspect.
But that statue is about something other than gods hand, simply including something does not make it overtly religious, now if it were a religious sculpture of jesus leading the battle that included an element about the soldiers in Iwo Jima, that would change it. Somehow it would seem that such an interpretation would not need to be explained.
Like I said, it's a mythological religious 'aspect'.
Nothing will ever cause these Iwo Jima statues or replicas to be altered or removed.
The myth of the 13th hand, is that it's God's hand......hence a religious aspect.
Even if the 13th hand did exist it isn't a state endorsement of a particular religion. Religious display is protected at cemeteries so I don't see where there would be a constitutional situation. It would alsmost require the survivors of the actual servicemen working as a class action suit to remove it and that just isn't likley.
Myth #1: There’s a 13th hand on the Iwo Jima Memorial, but there are only 6 soldiers depicted. The extra hand is meant to symbolize the hand of God.
Legend has it that the Marine Corps War Memorial, commonly referred to as the Iwo Jima Memorial, shows 13 hands. The statue was based off Joe Rosenthal’s iconic photo, Raising the Flag Over Iwo Jima, which we can assume just depicted twelve hands. So did sculptor Felix de Weldon add in a thirteenth hand to show divine intervention?
Definitely not. Go down and count for yourself, there are only twelve hands. Despite this, it’s a very persistent myth–but even the sculptor himself has denied it, saying, “Thirteen hands. Who needed 13 hands? Twelve were enough.” Veteran Tom Miller has even written a booklet dispelling the myth, called “The Iwo Jima Memorial & the Myth of the 13th Hand.” Myth busted.
Sorry Buzz, official USMC copies of the statue only have 12 hands.
There may be drawings or photo shopped pictures but the sculptures at PI and Arlington only have 12.
Thomas W. Miller
June 11, 2011 at 9:13 am
I was a gunnery sergeant on Iwo Jima from 19 Feb to 26 Mar 1945. I first heard the “13th hand” story early in 1999 from a 4-H group from California. Then, I could not confirm or deny the story — but I did not believe it was true — so I began researching it and before the year was out I published the booklet “The Iwo Jima Memorial & the Myth of the 13th Hand.” Over two editions (1999, 2001), 13 thousand copies were sold. It is no longer in print.
My research was conducted at the Marine Corps History Center, the National Archives, with knowledgeable veterans who had fought on Iwo Jima with the unit that raised the two flags on 23 February, in many books and articles about the battle and hundreds of visits to the memorial.
I happened to be at the memorial one day when sculptor Felix de Weldon also visited there, and I was able to ask him how he thought the myth began. Mr. de Weldon admitted he did not know. He threw his hands up and said, “Thirteen hands! Who needed thirteen, twelve were enough!”
My hope in 1999 was to erase this fiction of a 13th hand. Obviously, I was not successful.
Let the ones that live there vote on it.
If THEY want it, it stays.
If THEY dont want it, it goes.
Let the ones that live there vote on it.
The citizens don't vote on issues of constitutionality because if we did minorities would not have any rights because they would be outvoted. This is why state-level DOMA laws were struck down.
neither one of these cases involved a historical memorial. this case is not about a religious monument. It is a memorial to a local historical person.
read the article
and read through the thread
I am surprised how much people claim to be informed about the law yet know nothing.
neither one of these cases involved a historical memorial.
It is a historical monument with a religious icon on public property. The city will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to defend it, or it will be voluntarily moved for much cheaper and replaced with a secular historical monument.
And if it's not moved, then I suppose it will only be a matter of time before the Satanic Temple puts up a statue of Baphomet next to it.
I hope that both the Baphomet and the FSM memorial are illuminated so they can be used by boaters as navigational tools. Satanists and Pastafarians are thoughtful like that.
What country did you swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of, it sure isn't the United States.
Pere Marquette is only man I know of that had a major railroad named for him.
Pere Marquette Railroad was merged into C&O in 1947
Interesting.
Been in the Pere Marquette State Forest many times but not on his railroad as far as i know.
Would that railroad be a privately owned institution? The could call it the Jesus Express and no one could say a word, and rightly so.
Who is online
86 visitors
An outsider comes into a small town and says he is offended by their memorial.
What an ass.
Yet, strangely enough, were someone to put up a swastika or a pentagram or a statue of Stalin you'd be labeled an intolerant bigot for objecting.
It wasn't someone...it was the community that erected the memorial. I would not live in a community where something so bothered me.
The Establishment Clause does not apply and no one has protection from being offended.
The guy is an ass.
Makes me wonder if the guy is offended by the Cross - or offended when reminded that the community appreciates those kind hearted souls that are committed to Christian Charity.
I can't remember a time when my community erected a memorial to Atheists....but then, I never expected them to find a compelling reason to do so. Maybe that's the bug in this guy's bonnet.
could you tell everyone what a "symbol" of Atheism is that is equivalent to the cross for Christianity ?
I'd also like to know how someone would erect a monument to atheism and what would that monument be given that atheism is the statement that God doesn't exist?
... but some locals say it’s more than a religious symbol that also serves as a reference point for boaters and fishermen on the lake.
What a bunch of asses.
why?
Who navigates by shoreline markers when every smartphone has a GPS? A handheld GPS is about $150.
I don't know...why do you care?
Who navigates by shoreline markers when every smartphone has a GPS? A handheld GPS is about $150.
Not everyone has a smartphone or can afford a hand held GPS. DUH!
Everyone uses shoreline markers. Now you know.
Why? Because it's the lamest possible excuse. Remove it and replace it with something appropriate for such purposes. Duh.
It isn't an excuse, it is they way it is.
The town believes it is appropriate.
The town believes it is appropriate.
Good for them. Now accept that it isn't their choice, remove it to private property, and replace it with an appropriate beacon. Or spend badly needed public funds fighting a losing battle. Their choice.
why not?
Do you honestly think that the millions of dollars that have been spent unsuccessfully trying to keep Christian monuments in public spaces could have been saved if they had just consulted your legal prowess?
can you not answer the question?
Why?
you said it isn't their choice...so why not?
I know why, you know why, but you're trying to establish that the reasoning is unconstitutional. Why? Shouldn't you be out soliciting the hundreds of towns who have lost millions of dollars in such a losing fight? Apparently, you have an iron clad defense that can reap millions.
It doesn't matter if 100% of people want something that's unconstitutional, it's still unconstitutional. If you want to repeal the first amendment to the Constitution and all of the SCOTUS decisions using it then you'd better get busy.
Every one does indeed. When I was in the Navy we used several landmarks to navigate in and out of San Diego including a popular restaurant.
If you know why, then why don't you say why? lol
it is?
Because it would lead to the same stupid argument about this that rears it's ugly, uninformed head on every article about this subject. Rather than rehash that, it makes more sense to point out that the courts never side with defendants. It would be equally constitutional to place a giant statue of Satan right next to the cross. If the town wants to keep the cross, then they must accept any religious iconography requested to be placed on public lands. You want Jesus, fine - get used to Mohammed and Satan as well.
ok, but who will be memorialized by it?
Don't you believe in Satan, a.k.a. Lucifer, Beelzebub, etc., etc.?
There is no definite precedent to religious monuments on public grounds.
Then let them roll the dice. I personally don't even care about religious iconography, I care about maintaining nondiscriminatory practices. Let Satan and Mohammed be prominently on public display everywhere that Jesus is.
I also personally find it hilarious that Christians choose the cross to memorialize Jesus. I'm sure Jesus would say "what the fuck? They murdered me on that thing and every one of you freaks is wearing one on your damn neck! And what's this shit about drinking my blood and eating my flesh? What the fuck is wrong with you people!"
if that is what the community wants without breaking in laws, so be it.
what does Mohammed look like?
Who is a monument discriminating against?
lol
It does seem strange.
I looked for some history and found that even according to the Bible that Yeshua was not killed on a cross. The cross is a pagan symbol. This did not surprise me because the Christian religion adopted pagan holidays and symbols throughout its history.
more info on the HISTORY of the cross....
Bingo! And when was Jesus born, exactly?
you lost your argument so now you want to try and degrade Christians with foul language.
classy
If it NEVER bothered the town...what's the beef ?
Who the hell has this kind of time to hunt down and bitch about some structure erected before they were born anyway.
I look, read, move on. I really don't give a shit what's already there. Never met a structure that flummoxed my life yet.
Why do snowflakes worry so ?
you lost your argument
Lol. You funny. Go on now, go and rustle up some clients for your laughable defense.
Who is a monument discriminating against?
Do you have this much trouble paying attention in the real world?
you haven't provided anything...got some more cussin to do?
The "Real World" has monuments older than you. What's YOUR problem....since you weren't part of anything going on that produced the monuments.
tell us again your discrimination cases?
Have a nice day Sunshine. My work is done here. You lost.
No one knows or cares....nor did they for hundreds of years after Yeshua's death.
There are numerous gods who were "born" on Dec 25th so the followers of Yeshua added his name to the list of older gods (named at link below).
that is the best you can do?
But why would pagans use it as a religious symbol? What does it symbolize?
BTW...I always enjoy your comments on the Christian religion. You're always so informative and I learn a lot
Pagans used many symbols for various things that we may or may not fully understand today.
What we do know is that the Christian religion incorporated older religions' symbols and holidays into their fledgling religion in order to gain followers.
Thank you.
I was indoctrinated into the Christian religion at an early age and spent almost 5 decades learning about and understanding it so I could defend it from people who did not believe in it.
A few years ago, I was introduced to far more human history and world religion evolution than was taught or discussed in my corner of the Bible Belt. After gaining an education on the origins of Yahweh, I realized that it was as mythical as all of the other tens of thousands of gods that men have created, worshiped and discarded after their usefulness ended - or they were forced to give up using coercion and violence.
Now I am spending my time learning more about how the Christian religion was created and evolved because of the attempts of Christian zealots to use coercion to force their religious beliefs into government. History is filled with the atrocities committed by Christian zealots throughout the religion's history. There is no reason that we need to repeat this history.
I learned to sail in the late 1980s by a friend who had a 30' racing sailboat on Lake Erie by Cedar Point. He didn't have a GPS at the time because it was $1000+, so I learned to use paper charts and a sextant.
You don't go out on the Great Lakes now without GPS. Many boats now have radar and a touch screen plotter.
What person can afford to buy and maintain a boat but can't afford a $150 GPS? Can they also not afford a life jacket and a marine radio?
Did you not see where I suggested to replace the cross with a pole with a LED light on it? Maybe a 75' flagpole set in a concrete base just off the shore.
A lighthouse would be far more practical as a nautical marker than a cross. And it would work at night too.
Knowledge is power, that is the primary reason that religion insists on the followers remaining ignorant, the faithful are not to question.
as pointed out by another poster - there are many things used as a nautical marker for land, including restaurants, so it begs the questions -- why is the cross necessary as the nautical marker and not something else instead ? what would be the harm in using something else besides the cross as the nautical marker and removing the cross (putting it on private property or something) ?
Who said the cross was necessary? I think they just said it was a marker.
Why should they have to?
Are you claiming that about 80% of the world's population is ignorant?
if its not necessary than you concede that another marker could be used instead and you'd have no issues with that, correct ?
why are they fighting to keep it unless that cross is necessary as a marker ? i never stated they should have to.
it isn't my town, they can do what they want...why would I care?
apparently you have not read the article
based upon your comments throughout this page - you do seem to care quite a bit about what this town does including statements like "This city has decided to not cave at the first whine. " and "lol...he is hunting up and down the beaches for crosses....geez someone needs to get a life." (in reference to the guy who complained) and "but that is not the reason the jerk wants it removed." (in reference to the guy who complained) ... etc.. so obviously you do care. why do you care ?
i have absolutely read the article and it lacks explaining why are they fighting to keep it unless that cross is necessary as a marker and what harm would be done if that cross were removed and something else was used as a marker instead - but since you seem to be an expert then i'm sure you could point out to me exactly where it states these things in the article, right ?
Why thank you. The town does not have to argue anything. If the asshole and his group want the cross removed, they have to argue why.
The monument was erected to honor a historical figure important to their town. It was mentioned that it's purpose was also a marker. You are the only one deciding it was necessary.
I care about the issue, I don't care what the town decides to do about a marker. Why do you?
i said "seem" to be the expert - obviously i had an incorrect assumption.
they already have - its religious iconography - next ?
i haven't stated whether or not its necessary - i'm simply asking questions. Is it necessary to have that cross as the nautical marker for land ?
i haven't stated whether or not i care - i'm just asking questions, i'm curious as to what the "big deal" is about possibly removing this cross. anything can be used as a nautical marker as pointed out - so what's the big deal in removing the cross ? even the article states (if you would have read it) -- "we encourage the township board to take action that removes the offending cross but maintains the existing masonry structure and plaque." so the "memorial" would remain intact - yet you are attacking this guy for asking that this religious iconography be removed from public grounds. why is that ?
Yes I know
Yes you did
They want the cross as a historical monument to stay to honor a person important to them who was a priest.
Not difficult to understand
oh ? so now you'll provide the statement i made that said i state it was necessary - i will wait.
hmm.. gee... i didn't state it was necessary or not... i would suggest reviewing that statement again, here it is in full:
wow.. look at that.. its a question and not a statement.. so again: provide the statement that i made that said i state it was necessary - i will wait.
and that cross has been objected to as religious iconography - a proposed solution (as stated in the article you claimed to have read) is:
so again:
not very difficult to understand nor difficult to answer. you have called this guy a "jerk" and stated that he "needs to get a life" - please explain why you are attacking this guy when the proposed solution in the article keeps the "memorial" in tact minus the religious iconography that is being objected to.
congratulations ! i'm sure its a very handy skill to have and has served you well - would you mind answering my questions now and providing proof of your accusation ? so far you seem to be unable to do either one of these simple tasks.
would you mind answering my questions now and providing proof of your accusation ? so far you seem to be unable to do either one of these very simple tasks.
Read the thread sweetie. I have stated all of that.
Wait... no compliments?
read the thread sweetie - your "proof" of your accusation was not a statement that i made, instead it was a question so you have provided no proof and i'm still waiting on the proof or a retraction of your accusation.
you have also yet to explain why you are attacking this guy - you have called this guy a "jerk" and stated that he "needs to get a life" - when the proposed solution in the article keeps the "memorial" in tact minus the religious iconography that is being objected to.
wait... no more irrelevant graphics ?
I already did..you didn't say "why do they feel it is necessary".
except you own words...skirting the CoC [ph]
It happened in the small town I live in...................
A person passing through saw something in the city park and was "offended". Im Not mentioning what it was. When he got home (three states away) he sent a letter to the City. It was pretty much ignored. The City did reply stated they recieved his letter, sorry he was offended. The guy must have contacted a group (not going to say who) and letters came poring in from all over the U.S. saying it must go! The City actually held a Referendum Advisory Vote. (excuse me if that is incorrect). Over 90% of those that voted said it stays. The group threatened legal action against the city. The City Attorney advised that just the litigation would be very costly.
It is now gone......................
Exactly my point.
That is wrong. The same bully tactic is being used in this case, and it was even mentioned in one of the other articles I read. That is what this jerk did in Grand Haven, MI concerning the Coast Guard anchor and they caved also because of the cost of litigation...not because of losing the suit. But Ludington has some people willing to go the distant. They have attracted some heavy donators from around the state.
No...this is what you said.
Few cases have even made it to court. There is no set precedent for memorials on public land.
I had provided a link.
Yeah, our country is pretty FUBAR that way.
We need tort reform that stops potential threats of frivolous nonsense like this.
Badly!
You know what I was getting at, you're just playing coy (like you've been doing all along here). The courts will not side with a lawsuit seeking to deny non-Christian religious iconography from being displayed in public space, which is what will happen any time a community refuses to move a Christian monument on public land. The Establishment Clause is clear, and will be upheld anywhere it is challenged.
Lol, go ahead, have a good cry, let it all out there Hal .... squirt a few!
and where are these cases? do you have cases that made it to court?
Date: 1980
Case: Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 - A KY statute provides for the placement of the 10 Commandments in all public school classrooms - funding to come from private sources rather than the state or federal coffers. A disclaimer appeared at the bottom of the display asserting that the 10 Commandments had a secular purpose for being in the classroom insomuch as they were the basis of Western Law.
Vote: 5:4
Issue Raised: Does a state plan for placing the 10 Commandments in all public school classrooms violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Holding/Rationale: The Court held "the pre-eminent purpose for posting the 10 Commandments on school room walls is plainly religious in nature." The plan was held to violate the Establishment Clause.
not a memorial...try again
Stone v. Graham was one of the first Supreme Court cases to condemn a passive religious object for its unconstitutionality.
still not a memorial... had no secular purpose no matter how many times you post it.
Lol. I knew I should have stayed done the first time. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Yep!
no personal attacks please.
A religious monument is indeed a passive religious object. If you can't accept that, then my comment was less an attack than it is an accurate observation.
are you arguing with the Supreme Court? that case has no bearing on memorials.
The Supreme Court has refused to offer a broad rule on religious monuments, taking a more case-specific approach. Ten Commandments displays in public schools were banned in 1980. But the justices in 2005 allowed a 57-year-old Ten Commandments granite monument to stay on the Texas statehouse grounds, where it stands amid a series of nonreligious symbols.
and yes that was a personal attack
[Town attorney Crystal Bultje] told the roomful of people that the board had been advised against holding the hearing because it could leave the impression the decision about the cross is based on a “popularity contest.” Rather, the decision will be based on a legal “Lemon test” used in the past to settle similar disputes, Bultje said. That test says the memorial can stay if it meets three requirements: it has a secular purpose, it is doesn’t inhibit or advance religion, and it doesn’t “create excessive entanglement with religion,” she said.
She’s absolutely right, and she would know that the cross doesn’t meet those requirements. It’s an advertisement for Christianity, plain and simple. The town can easily honor Father Marquette without endorsing a particular religion in the process.
As I said, they are free to take it to court and roll the dice. They will join the dozens of other communities who lost a ton of money fighting a losing battle.
you keep saying the communities lost or will lose, but fail to show any cases lost.
repeating the same nonsense and arguing with the Supreme Court seems rather ridiculous.
Where did she say that?
There are a ton of cases, and if you want them go find them yourself. I’m not your research assistant. I’ll get you started:
“The federal lawsuit was victoriously settled on Feb. 15, 2017, when the school district agreed to remove the Ten Commandments marker, and pay attorneys’ fees of $163,500, of which more than $40,000 will go to FFRF for its attorney time and reimbursement of costs.”
The ACLU or the Freedom From Religion Foundation?
tons, just tons....lol
yet you can't manage to find one. you just keep posting the same irrelevant cases.
Lol. Not “can’t”. Won’t. Do your own research. I get tons of these articles emailed to me, but I’m not your bitch.
Translation: you've got nothing to support the BS you're pushing.
Got it.
you are so full of it. you get tons of articles, there are tons of cases, but you can't post one case that supports your opinion, or one article.
they are literally right at your fingertips.
don't worry, no one is interested in you being their bitch.
I get more articles from Patheos than I even have time to read, about a wide range of topics regarding separation of church and state. I've purged at least 200 of them in the last 6 months alone, and those are just the ones that I didn't have the time to read. The hundreds of others that I did read and are in my 'old mail' without being deleted are not formatted to easily scan through looking for that single topic. You are not important enough for me to go trolling through all of them to sift out the stuff you are too lazy to go find yourself, but here are a few that I noticed by headline alone:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/06/19/giant-christian-cross-in-pensacola-fl-park-has-to-come-down-says-judge/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=361
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/04/28/bill-to-put-ten-commandments-displays-in-public-places-blocked-by-gop-led-oklahoma-senate/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=361
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/05/14/nj-borough-will-remove-display-honoring-christian-soldiers-after-pressure-from-atheists/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=361
And here's one I posted recently that celebrates one Christian who got smart and put his religious iconography on his private property. Of course, the comments it drew from the mouthbreather holy rollers on NT hilariously claimed that the NT atheists were complaining about it being on private property. Lol. Reading is not their strong suit.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/05/14/nj-borough-will-remove-display-honoring-christian-soldiers-after-pressure-from-atheists/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=361
That's enough hand holding for you sunshine, you're on your own now.
no one forced you to babble on. you made a statement and was too lazy yourself to post anything to support it.
your problem not mine.
again, nothing here supports a historical figure.
failed.
you may want to listen to your own avatar.
just advice, because you just keep gripping about all the work you have to do to support your own opinions.
just trying to help you.
That's some great hearsay BS but hilarious. Keep it up.
This Mitch Kahle has been causing all kinds of problems on the coast of Lake Michigan:
That's CRC country Sunshine. They're very nice folks, but don't cross them. If he's not careful, no one will speak with him, no one will hire him or do business with him. If he parks his car or goes even one mile over the limit, he will get a ticket and the judge will NOT be understanding.
ok, been to the lake cities many times and don't know what CRC means - ?
Christian Reformed Church, a variation of the Dutch Reformed Church. Lots of them from GR to the lake and North and South along the lakeshore. Mostly descended from the original Dutch settlers in that area. They're still a power in the area. Easier to get elected to almost any office there if the first part of your last name starts with the letters "van" (Dutch equivalent of the German "von"). Learned a lot about the people there because one of the things I used to teach was Michigan History. Met a number of the folks there after we moved near GR, but not part of their inner circle. They're pretty exclusive and my ancestors were French Catholics who settled around Bay City.
I first ran into these people when my daughter went to a college in western Michigan in 2005. Most of these uptight people act like they want to return to the 1950s Ward and June Cleaver. I probably stood out like a whore in church among them because of their apparent love of severe buns, gingham and long skirts.
Ann Arbor is my kind of city.
Calvinists. Betsy DeVos is one of these nuts.
thanks TTGA
'Calvinists. Betsy DeVos is one of these nuts.'
Yup, she's the rich bitch who bought her position in Donald Rump's administration.
Betsy DeVos Wants to Use America’s Schools to Build “God’s Kingdom”
Trump’s education secretary pick has spent a lifetime working to end public education as we know it.
KRISTINA RIZGA MAR/APR 2017 ISSUE
sounds like you are the one uptight...lol
They stand out here on the forums like a sore and angry thumb.
Did you read the article? Nothing points to her using religion in her public position.
Mother Jones is a slobbering wet rag of bias.
So making the community follow the law sets one up for harassment? Should a religious organization that wants to start services expect to be harassed simply because they are not the predominant flavor cult?
Nope, making the community follow the law sets one up to be held to the same standard. If the cops bust you for minor infractions that would usually be overlooked, they are still infractions. If you want the community to strictly follow the law, better be prepared to do the same yourself. As far as having no social or business life, the guy is trying to be a bully and show what a badass he is. He chose the wrong people to mess with. You used the word "harassment". Nonsense, they're not going to harass him, they're simply going to shun him. There's no law saying that they have to associate with this guy at all.
IOW, the "good Christians" of the community will show their true nature as confessed to by that comment. With people like that, we atheists don't even have to make our case.
So true - the so called 'good christians' will ruin the life of someone who crosses them.
And they're the persecuted ones?
Unfreakingbelievable.
This was before the rich bitch paid for her position.
She's using it now dear, religion, that is.
How so?
She has no relevant experience in school administration, but the DeVos family gave Trump's election team thousands of dollars.
Oh, far more than that in dark money strewn all over the superfund site known as the republican party.
Feel free to explain how I am uptight by demanding the cabinet level positions should have years of relevant experience in government administration. This woman has spent her life trying to privatize public education as well as to bring fundamentalist religion into where it does not belong. She is the financial beneficiary of the Amway pyramid scheme. The only legitimate business this family has is the automotive subcontractor Johnson Controls.
You were not aware of who the Calvinists are or what they stand for just a few days ago. Are you aware that her brother is Eric Prince of Blackwater/Xe mercenary fame?
plain as the nose on the face.
no...I didn't know what CRC was referring to.
it isn't healthy to live constant paranoid.
You have yet to explain how I am paranoid of these religious fundamentalists? I laugh at most of them, until they are a in a position of political power to enforce their idiocy. Many of the people in GR need a beer or a joint and some good sex and then maybe they would relax. I've never seen a bunch of zombie white people like that city.
Betsy DeVos and God’s Plan for Schools
By KATHERINE STEWART DEC. 13, 2016
BOSTON — At the rightmost edge of the Christian conservative movement, there are those who dream of turning the United States into a Christian republic subject to “biblical laws.” In the unlikely figure of Donald J. Trump, they hope to have found their greatest champion yet. He wasn’t “our preferred candidate,” the Christian nationalist David Barton said in June, but he could be “God’s candidate.”
Consider the president-elect’s first move on public education. Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University , the largest Christian university in the nation, says that he was Mr. Trump’s first pick for secretary of education. Liberty University teaches creationism alongside evolution.
When Mr. Falwell declined , President-elect Trump offered the cabinet position to Betsy DeVos. In most news coverage, Ms. DeVos is depicted as a member of the Republican donor class and a leading advocate of school vouchers programs.
That is true enough, but it doesn’t begin to describe the broader conservative agenda she’s been associated with.
Betsy DeVos stands at the intersection of two family fortunes that helped to build the Christian right. In 1983, her father, Edgar Prince, who made his money in the auto parts business, contributed to the creation of the Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies as extremist because of its anti-L.G.B.T. language.
Continue reading the main storyHer father-in-law, Richard DeVos Sr., the co-founder of Amway , a company built on “multilevel marketing” or what critics call pyramid selling, has been funding groups and causes on the economic and religious right since the 1970s.
Ms. DeVos is a chip off the old block. At a 2001 gathering of conservative Christian philanthropists, she singled out education reform as a way to “advance God’s kingdom.” In an interview , she and her husband, Richard DeVos Jr., said that school choice would lead to “greater kingdom gain.”
And so the family tradition continues, funding the religious right through a network of family foundations — among others, the couple’s own, as well as the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, on whose board Ms. DeVos has served along with her brother, Erik Prince , founder of the military contractor Blackwater. According to Conservative Transparency, a liberal watchdog that tracks donor funding through tax filings, these organizations have funded conservative groups including: the Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal juggernaut of the religious right; the Colorado-based Christian ministry Focus on the Family ; and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy .
Like other advocates of school voucher programs, Ms. DeVos presents her plans as a way to improve public education and give families more choice. But the family foundations’ money supports a far more expansive effort.
The evangelical pastor and broadcaster D. James Kennedy, whose Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church is a beneficiary of DeVos largess, said in a 1986 sermon that children in public education were being “brainwashed in Godless secularism.” More recently, in 2005, he told followers to “exercise godly dominion” over “every aspect and institution of human society,” including the government.
Jerry Falwell Sr. outlined the goal in his 1979 book “America Can Be Saved!” He said he hoped to see the day when there wouldn’t be “any public schools — the churches will have taken them over and Christians will be running them.”
Vouchers are part of the program. According to an educational scholar, they originally came into fashion among Southern conservatives seeking to support segregation in schools. But activists soon grasped that vouchers could be useful in a general assault on public education. As Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, which receives support from a DeVos-funded donor group, explained : “Complete privatization of schooling might be desirable, but this objective is politically impossible for the time being. Vouchers are a type of reform that is possible now.”
The DeVoses well understand that, stripped of specious language about reform and choice, such a plan for public education would be deeply unpopular. In 2002, Mr. DeVos Jr.
The public school system faces the most immediate threat, but it is not the only institution at risk. The Christian right has already won a number of key roles in the Trump administration.
The head of the presidential transition, Vice President-elect Mike Pence, is an avid voucher proponent. As governor of Indiana, he expanded a voucher program that now funnels $135 million a year to private schools, almost all of them religious. Mr. Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, favors religious tests for new immigrants and objects to chief justices with “secular mind-sets.” The nominee for secretary of health and human services, Tom Price, is a member of a physicians’ organization aligned with conservative Christian positions on abortion and other issues.
Mr. Trump’s senior strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, may not appear to be a religious warrior, but he shares the vision of a threatened Christendom.
“I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian West, is in a crisis,” he said at a conference in 2014. This was “a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.”
What is distinctive about the Christian right’s response to this perceived crisis is its apocalyptic conviction that extreme measures are needed. There is nothing conservative about this agenda; it is radical. Gutting public education will be just the beginning.
An Op-Ed article on Tuesday about Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s selection for secretary of education, misstated a detail of the history of the school-voucher program in Indiana. The program began under Gov. Mitch Daniels, not under his successor, Mike Pence.
Katherine Stewart is the author of “The Good News Club: The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children.”
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter .
A version of this op-ed appears in print on December 13, 2016, on Page A31 of the New York edition with the headline: DeVos and God’s Plan for Schools. Today's Paper | Subscribe