State capitol religious monuments

[patric]

"The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

I am so on-board with offering up a FSM statue!  If anybody really gets that going, count me in.

But will it compete with truly meaningful, historically contextual and low cholesterol displays, like Festivus?     

Or.....

[rebound]

All Hail HypnoToad!   (His presence might explain some of the behavior we see popping up about this time of year....)

[patric]

But back to the graven images for a second, the weirdest part of this is the eminent domain angle:


LOS ANGELES — A federal judge ruled Thursday that a cross on federal land in San Diego violated the First Amendment ban on a government endorsement of religion and ordered it removed within 90 days.

The federal government seized the land on which the cross sits through eminent domain in 2006 as part of an effort to save the cross.
But in 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the cross violated the First Amendment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/us/judge-rules-against-cross-on-us-land.html?_r=0

[AquaMan]

But back to the graven images for a second, the weirdest part of this is the eminent domain angle:


LOS ANGELES — A federal judge ruled Thursday that a cross on federal land in San Diego violated the First Amendment ban on a government endorsement of religion and ordered it removed within 90 days.

The federal government seized the land on which the cross sits through eminent domain in 2006 as part of an effort to save the cross.
But in 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the cross violated the First Amendment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/us/judge-rules-against-cross-on-us-land.html?_r=0
Right hand...meet left hand.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

But back to the graven images for a second, the weirdest part of this is the eminent domain angle:


LOS ANGELES — A federal judge ruled Thursday that a cross on federal land in San Diego violated the First Amendment ban on a government endorsement of religion and ordered it removed within 90 days.

The federal government seized the land on which the cross sits through eminent domain in 2006 as part of an effort to save the cross.
But in 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the cross violated the First Amendment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/us/judge-rules-against-cross-on-us-land.html?_r=0

Cherry picking?

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge ruled Thursday that a cross on federal land in San Diego violated the First Amendment ban on a government endorsement of religion and ordered it removed within 90 days.

But the quarter-century fight over the 29-foot cross atop Mount Soledad may not be over. The judge said he would stay the order if there was an appeal. The case has wound through the courts since the 1980s, while the cross has become emblematic of the national debate over the place of religion in public life.

After a previous cross at the site was knocked down in a windstorm, the current cross was erected on city property in 1954 by the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, a veterans’ group, who called it a monument to Korean War veterans. In 1989, Philip K. Paulson, a Vietnam War veteran and an atheist, sued the City of San Diego to have the cross removed, and the case has remained in court ever since.

Supporters of the cross have argued that it remains a war memorial, not a religious symbol, even though few if any commemorations of war victims were at the site until after Mr. Paulson’s lawsuit.

The federal government seized the land on which the cross sits through eminent domain in 2006 as part of an effort to save the cross.

But in 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the cross violated the First Amendment ban. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case last year, sending it back to the trial court.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs celebrated Thursday’s ruling. They said no one wanted the cross destroyed, and hoped the federal government would now negotiate to move it elsewhere.

“This is a win for religious liberty,” said Daniel Mach, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union. “The government can and should honor those who served and died for this country, but not by playing favorites with faiths.”

Supporters of the cross indicated they planned to appeal.

This cross has been in place since 1954. It wasn't until an atheist Vietnam vet complained in 1989 that it became a matter of religion. Isn't Arlington Nat'l Cemetery Federal land? I don't hear any one complaining about the crosses on the memorial markers for the graves there?

[patric]

Cherry picking?

Highlighting, with a link you were able to successfully follow (if that was your choice).

Arlington is an ironic example, having been Robert E. Lee's backyard until the government seized it in his absence (so that Lee would come home and face the graves of the war dead).

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Highlighting, with a link you were able to successfully follow (if that was your choice).

Arlington is an ironic example, having been Robert E. Lee's backyard until the government seized it in his absence (so that Lee would come home and face the graves of the war dead).

Yes I read it, I try to not be a "kneejerk mouthbreather with ADD". The article sound familiar from reading it, and I remembered hearing about it at least once a year, usually around Christmas and Easter while living in Arizona. It was usually a fluff piece used as filler on a slow day.

I think the real irony is the fact that a veteran (albeit an atheist) is against a memorial to veterans.

[rebound]

Isn't Arlington Nat'l Cemetery Federal land? I don't hear any one complaining about the crosses on the memorial markers for the graves there?

The crosses on the graves at Arlington are by choice of the deceased (or at least the family of the deceased), and now even include Wiccan symbols, if they so choose:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs_emblems_for_headstones_and_markers

Scroll down on the page and see the various designs.  It's actually kind of cool, with the large number and variety of designs.

[patric]

As always, an on-the-mark analysis:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-12-2013/war-on-christmas---s--t-s-getting-weird-edition

[swake]

Yes I read it, I try to not be a "kneejerk mouthbreather with ADD". The article sound familiar from reading it, and I remembered hearing about it at least once a year, usually around Christmas and Easter while living in Arizona. It was usually a fluff piece used as filler on a slow day.

I think the real irony is the fact that a veteran (albeit an atheist) is against a memorial to veterans.

The crosses on the graves at Arlington are completely appropriate and are a good example of how religion can certainly exist on public property. Everyone’s individual faith, or lack thereof, is completely respected and included, equally. A single big lit cross or a lone monument to the Ten Commandments on public property is the antitheses of how religion is handled at Arlington.

[saintnicster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_National_Cemetery#Grave_markers.2C_niches_and_headstones

Crosses on the gravestones in Arlington are not required and they even have options for those of different faiths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs_emblems_for_headstones_and_markers

[RecycleMichael]

http://aattp.org/the-war-on-christmas-has-been-won-in-wisconsin-flying-spaghetti-monster-monument-a-go/

The ‘War on Christmas’ Has Been WON in Wisconsin, Flying Spaghetti Monster Monument a Go!


In the apparently regular annual battle for the soul of the solstice holidays, more commonly known as “the war on Christmas,” a monster made of pasta has apparently won his place in Wisconsin. The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster has erected a monument to their noodle based deity in the state capitol building, alongside the Christian nativity scene, bobble laden holiday tree and a hosted Festivus display.
 
The state capital, which is hosting a series of events to celebrate the multitude of holidays enshrined during these bleak winter months, welcomed the University of Wisconsin’s Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics (AHA) display, with Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom of Religion Foundation saying that “The rotunda is getting very cluttered, but if a devotional nativity display is allowed, then there must be ‘room at the inn’ for all points of view, including irreverency and free thought.”

Beginning in 2005 with the first mention of The Flying Spaghetti Monster deity (or FSM as permitted by made up church doctrine,) in this open letter penned by satirist Bobby Henderson to the Kansas School Board regarding their debate as to whether or not creationism belonged in science class, the Church has already undergone a reform movement, with the Reformed Church of Alfredo, denouncing what they call “the lie” of Chef Boyardee.

Paralleling the absurdist demonstration of a beer can Festivus pole in the Florida state capitol, Wisconsin AHA President Sam Erickson said of the display that he and his fellow non-believers “would prefer to keep our capital secular.”

[Ed W]

This is an artist's concept of the Edism monument. Not THE Artist, a member of this forum. Just an artist, and not a particularly good one:



For some background information, I'm wearing the Trenchcoat of Truth over the Thong of Justice...and Chuck Taylors.

[RecycleMichael]

It is hard to trust a diety with his hand always in his pocket.

[Gaspar]

It is hard to trust a diety with his hand always in his pocket.

I think he's scratching.