9th Circuit Court strikes again.
 

This isn't technically about politics, but it is definitely about the idea of being politically correct so this is where the thread shall land.

Disclaimer: i haven't researched the organization that published this or the individuals in the suit yet. i post this for consumption in the cellar.

9th Circuit Court

i don't personally see how a court can rule that private property cannot be used in this manner because it holds a "cultural significance" to a group of people. the significance it holds is that it is sacred land in their belief system. at the sam time thecourt rules to remove a cross from a memorial area, so as not to conflict with the establishment clause.

how is one acceptable and the other not?

Someone needs to remove their head from lower end. Maybe the Duck hunting buddy can clear this up?

Okay, I'll bite...

When you say that the 9th Circuit Court "strikes again," what do you mean? Have they done something before? I'm pretty sure I know what you're going to say, but what the hell...

sorry syc, it's just kind of an arizona thing. some of the cowboy hat-wearing people are always bitching about the 9th circuit. *redneck accent* "them bastards up in sanfran always effing with our country..."

that kind of thing. so it was just a reference to that. sometimes i forget that most cellarites are living around philthadelphia.

edit: "philthadelphia" is not an insult, it is a reference to the roots

But rather than advancing any particular religion, safeguarding Native sites "has historical value for the nation as a whole," the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said on September 1. "Native American sacred sites of historical value are entitled to the same protection as the many Judeo-Christian religious sites," Judge Betty B. Fletcher wrote.

Woodruff Butte is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. Although it hasn't been listed, Arizona's policy requires anyone desiring a commercial source number to submit an environmental assessment that considers adverse effects on a potential NRHP site.

The Roots generally refer to our city as "Illadelph"...Jesus fucking Christ, Lookout...you can't even get that right! :)

when i saw them (granted that has been a few years now) I SWEAR scratch kept calling your fine city philthadelphia while bantering with Common.

It's possible...and this city CAN be pretty fucking dirty.

i've never been there. but thanks for assuming i am so fucking stupid as to not know "illadelph". now i really know what you think of my intellect.



freaking stl reject, gets all high and mighty just because he moved east...

You're from Northern Illinois, right? Need I say more?

Doesn't the 9th have a track record of being overturned?
Have the Indians attempted to buy this "Sacred site"? Seems to me, if it's so important to them, they should. Come to think of it, isn't all land (and water, sky, wind, animals, et al) sacred to them?
Curiouser & curiouser. :eyebrow:

yep, far enough north that we actually know how to pronounce missouri and wash the right way. any other questions, mister stlunatic?

While some folks will mispronounce "sink" and "wash," rest assured that most St. Louisans refer to their state as (Mi-ZOOR-ee).

Bruce, if the site is sacred to the Native Americans--and they've been around a lot longer than white folk--why should they buy the land?

because they weren't strong enough to hold on to it. :eek: or more pointedly, if it wasn't important enough for them to spend their money on it, it isn't important enough to tell a taxpaying citizen who owns the deed what he can do with it.

I prefer to get my information direct from the source, rather than have it spoon fed to me via some intermediary with either a left or right wing agenda. Try here:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...+Circuit&hl=en

The land owner is P.O'd because he can't get any state of Arizona contracts because the site has been declared HISTORIC, not religous. The owner is still free to sell his conglomerate to privately owned concerns. I find it amusing that all these right wing, Libertarian outfits have jumped on the bandwagon for this guy's right to swill at the government trough.

Perhaps the Native American groups didn't attempt to outbid McKinnon because the sale and his plan for the subsequent use of the land were not made public knowledge?

Let's hear it for the rights of the American businessman to belly up to the tax payer pork barrel! Damn that 9th circuit court of appeals, anyhow! I'm glad to hear you're willing to share your tax payer dollar with SOMEONE, Lookout. Is he a client of your firm? :eyebrow:

are you living off the public dole, too?

Is THAT the best reply you can come up with? So, Lookout, are you engaged in insider trading, too? That question is as applicable and as demeaning as yours was. Give everyone a break, already!

oh, i just thought turnabout in the form of jackass questions was fair play considering that i've never discussed anything with flippant until here question to me.

I checked out the site for myself, and name-calling aside, that DOES seem to be the crux of the dude's beef - that the Arizona department of highways won't buy his conglomerate. Anyone else in the world can, however.

Oh yeah...that was a fair fight.

It's not the Natives that are telling this guy what to do. The state has decided that it doesn't want materials from the area used in state highway projects.

Now, this is what I don't get...the owner can still deal with private companies...and probably with other states and/or local municipalities. That's a hell of a loophole.

Are there Christian churches in private hands that have been designated historic sites?

Christ Church in Philadelphia

only dummies get into fair fights. but i made my original comment with sarcastic intent.
that is cool. i don't have a problem with that. like i said before i haven't researched the issue myself and don't know anything about the publisher.
what i read just raised a few flags for me.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, Conejos, Colorado (I don't know if the Catholic archdiocese would be considered private, but its as private as the Navajo or Hopi's, anyhow).

that isn't quite the same though because the private groups that own the property(churches), are probably the same ones who sought historic preservation status.

in this case an outside group is pushing the status on another person's property.

More than you ever wanted to know
 

From the 9th Circuit's ruling:

" According to Cholla’s complaint, ADOT faced years ofcontroversy about the destruction of Woodruff Butte. A federal district court in previous litigation awarded the Hopi Tribe a preliminary injunction requiring consultation with the Tribe before spending federal funds on a construction project using materials from Woodruff Butte because of the Butte’s historical and cultural importance. The complaint’s descriptions of the controversy and litigation over the land; the cultural and historical importance of Woodruff Butte in addition to its religious significance; and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer’s conclusion that the Butte is an ‘important cultural landmark’ are inconsistent with Cholla’s claim that advancing religion is the principal or primary effect of defendants’ actions. Because of the unique status of Native American socie-ties in North American history, protecting Native American shrines and other culturally important sites has historical value for the nation as a whole, much like Greece’s preservation of the Parthenon, an ancient Greek temple of worship. Similarly, because of the central role of religion in human societies, many historical treasures are or were sites of religious worship. The Establishment Clause does not require governments to ignore the historical value of religious sites. Native American sacred sites of historical value are entitled to the same protection as the many Judeo-Christian religious sites that are protected on the NRHP, including the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.; the Touro Synagogue, America’s oldest standing synagogue, dedicated in 1763; and numerous churches that played a pivotal role in the Civil Rights Movement, including the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama. [8] Defendants’ policy does not convey endorsement orapproval of the Tribes’ religions. See County of Allegheny,492 U.S. at 592; Buono v. Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 548-50 (9thCir. 2004) (holding that maintenance of a cross on public land violates the Establishment Clause because a reasonable observer might see the cross as an endorsement of Christianity). There is no suggestion that the state defendants favor tribal religion over other religions or that they would not protect sites of historical, cultural, and religious importance to other groups. [9] Moreover, defendants’ policy does not advance religion, but rather implements ADOT’s decision that state construction projects should be carried out in a way that does not interfere with the Tribes’ religious practices or destroy religious sites that have historical significance. Accommodating religious practices that does not amount to an endorsement is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. See Hobbie v.Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U.S. 136, 144-45 (1987)"

That is often how historical sites work. In my neighborhood, there is a hideous old Sears building that has changed hands several times. The local people managed to get it designated a historical site to prevent it from being made into a high rise. Of course, someone bought it and decided to put a condo on the roof, without disturbing the historical facade. As you can see, I'm not always in favor of historical site status, but it is not uncommon for the status to be forced upon the owner.

My mouth was repossessed for a moment.......You still haven't discussed anything with Flippant.......It was a virtual accident. The real author of those statements will never be disclosed....Never!!

Sometimes never comes along sooner than you think. Flippant was over using my computer and after she left I went on the cellar without realizing the computer still had her logged in. I wrote my reply, hit "send", and to my horror my post appeared under poor Flippant's name. I already apologized to her, and I apologize to you, as well, Lookout, for the confusion. :blush:

In a way.......Except I prefer to live off my charm and good looks... :D
Is that........unacceptable? :yelgreedy

From the original link;Oh, is that so. :eyebrow:

Where is that?

there are different headstones for different faithgroups. it is the individual's (or executor's) choice.

I think I've seen that particular headstone pic before ... if it's a military cemetary, I would guess it's the one in Normandy ... Stones at Arlington National Cemetary are the more conventional headstone shape, with the religious symbol engraved on the stone above the name.

There are attempts being made to add to the list of already-approved religious symbols available for military headstones.

Witchvox Article

Pagan Headstone Campaign

I suspect that's Arlington cementary. The surviver's of the deceased may or may not choose to have a loved one who was a veteran interred there. I could have had my father buried at Arlington. I chose not to because he wished to be buried near other members of our family in a small graveyard back in Kentucky. Had I made the choice to have his grave in a military graveyard, I could have chosen the form of his memorial. That the military honors the religion of choice of the deceased veteran and his family is called freedom of religion, NOT government endorsed religion.

It's not Arlington. Headstones are Arlington are conventional headstone shape.

The cross-shaped stones are in the American Battle Monument Commission Cemeteries.

Silly me. I would have saved myself a lot of searching for things had I merely checked the name of bruce's posted photo.

His is of Flander's Field. Belgium, IIRC.

Why did Bruce post a picture from Belgium to make a point about the US government? I've seen Arlington National cemetary, and I honestly don't recall the shape of the memorials - just that there were row after row of them. :confused: