The following involves a real-life, recently begun, First Amendment Establishment Clause dispute. Minor media outlets first started covering this in January.

On February 9th four members of Congress presented the Superintendent of a federally funded four-year, service academy with a demand letter. The Congressmen disapprove of the academy's recent decision to place curtains over an enormous painting in one of
the largest and most prominent meeting rooms at the academy. The painting features a bigger-than-life depiction of Jesus Christ. Among other things, the Congressmen want the curtains removed. The Congressmen also want "evidence of the legal requirements"
the academy has stated exist to justify the academy's decision. The letter from the Congressmen appears at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/02/09/exclusive-republicans-raise-concerns-over-a-historic-painting-covered-at-u-s-marine-academy/

Would the academy's government attorneys be on good legal ground to deny the request for this so-called "evidence"? For example, could the attorneys reasonably respond, "The government asserts that this so-called "evidence" is attorney-client privileged."
? (Which I think would be saying to the Congressmen that if they want to try to get anywhere, they will either have to file a lawsuit in court, or maybe invoke some power as members of Congress of which I am presently unaware. It's perhaps the stuff of
Legislative branch vs. Executive branch?)

Or would the prudent course more likely be for government lawyers to write a letter, on behalf of the academy, touching on the case law as the government attorneys see it, all to possibly keep this dispute out of court?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/12/2023 1:47 PM, Elle N wrote:

The following involves a real-life, recently begun, First Amendment Establishment Clause dispute. Minor media outlets first started covering this in January.

On February 9th four members of Congress presented the Superintendent of a federally funded four-year, service academy with a demand letter. The Congressmen disapprove of the academy's recent decision to place curtains over an enormous painting in one

of the largest and most prominent meeting rooms at the academy. The painting features a bigger-than-life depiction of Jesus Christ. Among other things, the Congressmen want the curtains removed. The Congressmen also want "evidence of the legal
requirements" the academy has stated exist to justify the academy's decision. The letter from the Congressmen appears at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/02/09/exclusive-republicans-raise-concerns-over-a-historic-painting-covered-at-u-s-marine-
academy/

Would the academy's government attorneys be on good legal ground to deny the request for this so-called "evidence"? For example, could the attorneys reasonably respond, "The government asserts that this so-called "evidence" is attorney-client

privileged."? (Which I think would be saying to the Congressmen that if they want to try to get anywhere, they will either have to file a lawsuit in court, or maybe invoke some power as members of Congress of which I am presently unaware. It's perhaps
the stuff of Legislative branch vs. Executive branch?)

Or would the prudent course more likely be for government lawyers to write a letter, on behalf of the academy, touching on the case law as the government attorneys see it, all to possibly keep this dispute out of court?

The USMMA is controlled by the Department of Transportation. The
lawyers on both side of the controversy are being paid for by the US Government. Attorney-client privilege seems irrelevant. A defense
would be executive-privilege which means that President Biden would be
the one asserting it.

The USMMA was created by Congress and its funding is in the budget
authorized by Congress. Congress could conceivably write a law
forbidding the action, cut the school's funding, or just close it. As
part of their powers Congress can issue subpoenas, hold hearings, etc
without need of a court case.

Also, I would think that requests for the information would also be
required to be released to the public via FOIA.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 11:56:39 PM UTC-6, Roy wrote:

The USMMA was created by Congress and its funding is in the budget
authorized by Congress. Congress could conceivably write a law
forbidding the action, cut the school's funding, or just close it. As
part of their powers Congress can issue subpoenas, hold hearings, etc
without need of a court case.

Roy, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Your points make sense to me.

I see the academy is the base for about 1000 duly sworn and commissioned
naval reserve midshipmen. I think the Academy is by law responsive to the
Navy when reserve requirements arise? Not that midshipmen have been
called up for reserve duty in times of war in the past. But they could be? Which makes me wonder whether an attempt by Congress to override
Academy/DOT's position on this means military first amendment law comes
into play. Meaning for one: The Supreme Court ruled some years ago that what
is constitutionally protected as freedom of religious expression/speech
in the civilian world may not be constitutionally protected in the military world,
due to the military's need for discipline and obedience to command.

It's hard for me to see even a majority of the House opposing religious neutrality
in this particular setting of the academy. I also tend to think many members of Congress would not want to undermine what looks like a military command.
We shall see if this goes anywhere.

I see the four congressmen who objected are all election deniers. Whatever
they believe, I figure they are appeasing their constituents with this letter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/13/2023 10:20 AM, Elle N wrote:

...

Roy, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Your points make sense to me.

I see the academy is the base for about 1000 duly sworn and commissioned naval reserve midshipmen. ...

Midshipmen are not commissioned. They are commissioned as a officer
when they graduate.

The equivalent title is "cadet" for Army, Air Force, Space Force. I was
one for 2 years via ROTC and then spent four years on active duty as a Lieutenant behind a desk in Charlottesville, VA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_cadet

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 07:21:16 -0800 (PST), Elle
N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 11:27:36 PM UTC-6, Roy wrote:

On 2/13/2023 10:20 AM, Elle N wrote:

I see the academy is the base for about 1000 duly sworn and commissioned >> > naval reserve midshipmen. ...

Midshipmen are not commissioned. They are commissioned as a officer
when they graduate.

The equivalent title is "cadet" for Army, Air Force, Space Force. I was
one for 2 years via ROTC and then spent four years on active duty as a
Lieutenant behind a desk in Charlottesville, VA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_cadet

Thank you. I suppose the phrase I should have used is "duly sworn and appointed," per the following:

"Legally, midshipmen are a special grade of uncommissioned officer that ranks between the senior noncommissioned enlisted grade (E-9) and the lowest grade of chief warrant officer (W-2, in the U.S. Coast Guard, which does not currently use the grade of

warrant officer (W-1))[90][91][A 6] or warrant officer (W-1), U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, or U.S. Marine Corps." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midshipman

So these are merchant marine midshipmen? not naval midshipmen? I
realize that all ships have a middle, but it seems to unfairly dilute
the term midshipman. I see from the link that it's true, but WADR,
members of the US Navy are trained to fight, to attack and withstand
attacks, and members of the merchant marine are trained to load and
unload freight.

“I, ______, having been appointed a midshipman to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, accept appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will comply with all the regulations of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.�? -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/310.57

And does the oath legally end in "so help me God"? That seems improper
on its face. I think I've seen this in some state-prescribed oaths
also. The oath for President specified in the Constitution doers't
include that, and aiui George Washington added it as his personal
expression of the firmness with which he was promising to do what the
oath said. And every other president has done the same thing (either
out of belief or for fear the public will dislike it if he doesn't).
That's fine if they want to say it, but for the USA or a state to
require it is wrong.

For one thing some religions discourage or prohibit oaths to God, and
just as important and more broadly applicable, even if one believes in
God and is promising as if it were an oath to God, it's wrong for the
USA or a state to try to mix its affairs with God. Both because of the
1st Amendment and because of how easy it is to get people to commit
crimes when you tell them God wants it.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 11:27:36 PM UTC-6, Roy wrote:

On 2/13/2023 10:20 AM, Elle N wrote:

I see the academy is the base for about 1000 duly sworn and commissioned naval reserve midshipmen. ...

Midshipmen are not commissioned. They are commissioned as a officer
when they graduate.

The equivalent title is "cadet" for Army, Air Force, Space Force. I was
one for 2 years via ROTC and then spent four years on active duty as a Lieutenant behind a desk in Charlottesville, VA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officer_cadet

Thank you. I suppose the phrase I should have used is "duly sworn and appointed," per the following:

"Legally, midshipmen are a special grade of uncommissioned officer that ranks between the senior noncommissioned enlisted grade (E-9) and the lowest grade of chief warrant officer (W-2, in the U.S. Coast Guard, which does not currently use the grade of
warrant officer (W-1))[90][91][A 6] or warrant officer (W-1), U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, or U.S. Marine Corps." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midshipman


“I, ______, having been appointed a midshipman to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, accept appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will comply with all the regulations of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.” -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/310.57

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 10:11:13 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:

So these are merchant marine midshipmen? not naval midshipmen?

For one, they are midshipman in the Naval Reserve. The midshipmen even wear (per regulations I presume) a USNR pin above their left breast pocket, starting early in their plebe year, as shown here:

https://hooversun.com/peopleplaces/chang-buchanan-join-us-merchant-marine-academy/

https://www.iwp.edu/press-releases/2021/05/24/three-kings-point-midshipmen-receive-the-united-states-merchant-marine-academy-class-of-2021-iwp-award-for-excellence-in-cyber-statecraft/

realize that all ships have a middle, but it seems to unfairly dilute
the term midshipman. I see from the link that it's true, but WADR,
members of the US Navy are trained to fight, to attack and withstand
attacks, and members of the merchant marine are trained to load and
unload freight.

Said freight in time of war enabling the Navy to fight, attack and so on.

Per the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, "It is necessary for the national defense... that the United States shall have a merchant marine of the best equipped and most suitable types of vessels sufficient to carry the greater portion of its commerce and
serve as a naval or military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency..."

When it comes to who is in charge of merchant ships in time of war, I understand the "naval or military auxiliary" part is not trivial. This may be an understatement.

[snip]

And does the oath legally end in "so help me God"? That seems improper
on its face.

So does "In God We Trust" on coins.

It appears those entering the military and taking the oath have the option of omitting the "so help me god" part. See http://militaryatheists.org/about/faqs/do-i-have-to-say-so-help-me-god-during-my-enlistment-oath/

thehill.com started covering this, reporting that U. S. Congressman Banks (R-Trump, Indiana) has joined the fray, demanding Secretary Buttigieg take action. See https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3856169-jim-banks-calls-on-buttigieg-to-correct-covering-
of-jesus-artwork-at-merchant-marine-academy/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:36:58 -0800 (PST), Elle
N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:

thehill.com started covering this, reporting that U. S. Congressman Banks (R-Trump, Indiana) has joined the fray, demanding Secretary Buttigieg take action. See https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3856169-jim-banks-calls-on-buttigieg-to-correct-covering-

of-jesus-artwork-at-merchant-marine-academy/

Quote:

Banks cited a Supreme Court ruling in 2019, saying that religious symbolism in historic displays does not violate the Constitution.

Apparently the Court said that, but that doens't stop the Executive from
using a stricter standard, does it?

He also added that more than 4,000 community members of the academy, including midshipmen and alumni, signed a petition demanding that the covering be removed and a plaque be added to demonstrate the historical significance, according to the letter.

�I support their request and believe there is ample evidence that previously established lega precedent negates the �constitutional concerns� of an anti-Christian activist who is so extreme that he has described the Wreaths Across America program as �

the Annual Government-Sanctioned Desecration of Non-Christian Veterans,'� he said in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News.

I don't who said this or what all he said, but the details of Wreaths
Across America are interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreaths_Across_America

Wreaths Across America is an American nonprofit organization established in 2007 by wreath producer Morrill Worcester, assisted by veterans and truckers

Originally it seems clear that it was a *donation* of unsold wreaths***.
The article doesn't say exactly when it was no longer a donation, or how
long it has accounted for most of the company's revenue and profits.
Shaking my head.

***Are there tax advantages to donating them? Wouldn't they be just as deductible if they remained unsold and eventually got sent to the dump?
If so, it's good of them to have donated them. Surely they didn't have
the later plan in mind at the start. It doesnt' seem to have gotten
big until 2005 or 6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreaths_Across_America#Conflicts_of_interest >Conflict of interest charges have been made against Wreaths Across America because this charity has an exclusive for-profit supplier, Worcester Wreath Company, also run by the Morrill family in the same town. The charity's purchases of wreaths from this
company account for most of the company's revenue and profits. In late 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported serious conflicts of interest with potential malfeasance in governance and contracting.[6] In 2015 alone, the Journal reported profits of over $
1 million on sales of over 850,000

That's less than $1.50 profit per wreath. That seems modest. OTOH,
it's over a million total.

wreaths to the charity raising concerns about competitive bidding, reporting that several competitors had asked to bid significantly below the price offered by Worcester Wreath company but were denied access.[6] In 2016, Wreaths Across America,

implemented a request for proposal process for the provision of wreaths which is managed by the board of directors.[7] The organization has stated that they intend to address perceptions of conflict of interest by selecting an outside agency to manage
the entire RFP process in 2023.[8]....

In early 2022, Morrill Worcester announced a proposed Flagpole of Freedom Park to be located on 2,500 acres (1,000 ha) of his family's land in Columbia Falls....The centerpiece flagpole has a planned height of 1,461 feet (445 m), slightly taller than

the Empire State Building,..., with two observation decks, one at the top....

Morrill Worcester's son Mike said that the for-profit park will not seek government funding and hopes to obtain private funding

I wonder if it will get built, and if it will make a profit. It's
almost in the SE corner of Maine.





--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:26:07 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:36:58 -0800 (PST), Elle
N <honda....> wrote:

thehill.com started covering this, reporting that U. S. Congressman Banks (R-Trump, Indiana) has joined the fray, demanding Secretary Buttigieg take action. See https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3856169-jim-banks-calls-on-buttigieg-to-correct-

covering-of-jesus-artwork-at-merchant-marine-academy/

Quote:

Banks cited a Supreme Court ruling in 2019, saying that religious symbolism in historic displays does not violate the Constitution.

Apparently the Court said that, but that doens't stop the Executive from using a stricter standard, does it?

If I were an attorney for DOT/MARAD/USMMA, what you posted would be my position. I think you put it really well, too.

I am trying to imagine what the premise of a lawsuit by these Congressmen's constituents would be, to get the curtains removed. The first four Congressmen (Garcia, Green, Pfluger and Davidson) to object asserted that the two recent SCOTUS opinions "
stressed that government intervention to unduly remove religious symbols could violate the Establishment Clause." The facts: This bigger-than-life Jesus image hangs in one of the biggest and most prominent meeting rooms at the academy. The Academy has
ordered that the curtains be closed for any mandatory meeting in this room. The setting is not the same as the Bladensburg and Texas cases, where people can choose not to be in the presence of the Peace Cross and Ten Commandment monuments. I do not see
how covering the painting during mandatory meetings is 'unduly removing' the Jesus image. Plus as noted above SCOTUS has drawn a line between civilian and military First Amendment rights, saying the military of necessity can be more restrictive at times.

The question to me is how much heat there will be and how much the USMMA/MARAD/DOT are willing to take?

If I were Secretary Buttigieg, then I would find a military base Christian chapel that had room for the enormous painting; ship the painting off; remind people that now, anyone who wants to see this historic Christian painting can do so; and move onto
getting, say, our highways rebuilt.

It irks that these Congressmen prefer a Christian-biased setting in a military meeting room to a non-biased setting. Among other things, I think this is a terrible lesson for soldiers/sailors/officers/midshipmen/civil servants.

[Congressman Banks] also added that more than 4,000 community members of the academy, including midshipmen and alumni, signed a petition demanding that the covering be removed and a plaque be added to demonstrate the historical significance, according

to the letter.

“I support their request and believe there is ample evidence that previously established lega precedent negates the ‘constitutional concerns’ of an anti-Christian activist who is so extreme that he has described the Wreaths Across America

program as ‘the Annual Government-Sanctioned Desecration of Non-Christian Veterans,'” he said in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News.

I don't who said this or what all he said, but the details of Wreaths
Across America are interesting

All I know is that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) has objected to these wreaths being placed on dead soldiers/sailors/officers graves without permission of the families. The wreaths are always placed around Christmas. The MRFF's clients
contend that the wreaths are either a pagan or Christian symbol. The wreaths desecrate the graves of atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jewish people and so on. I think MRFF is right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com>:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:26:07 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:36:58 -0800 (PST), Elle
N <honda....> wrote:

thehill.com started covering this, reporting that U. S. Congressman Banks (R-Trump, Indiana) has joined the fray, demanding

Secretary Buttigieg take action. See >https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3856169-jim-banks-calls-on-buttigieg-to-correct-covering-of-jesus-artwork-at-merchant-marine-academy/

Quote:

Banks cited a Supreme Court ruling in 2019, saying that religious symbolism in historic displays does not violate the Constitution.

Apparently the Court said that, but that doens't stop the Executive from
using a stricter standard, does it?

The 2019 case was about an outdoor memorial to soldiers who died in WW
I, which is in the form of a 40 foot high cross. It is not hard to
figure out why this is not the same thing.

I am trying to imagine what the premise of a lawsuit by these Congressmen's constituents would be, to get the curtains removed.

They're going to sue, they're just going to make noise on right wing talk shows.

If I were Secretary Buttigieg, then I would find a military base Christian chapel that had room for the enormous painting; ship
the painting off; remind people that now, anyone who wants to see this historic Christian painting can do so; and move onto
getting, say, our highways rebuilt.

Not a bad idea.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:53:21 -0800 (PST), Elle
N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 9:26:07 AM UTC-6, micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:36:58 -0800 (PST), Elle
N <honda....> wrote:

thehill.com started covering this, reporting that U. S. Congressman Banks (R-Trump, Indiana) has joined the fray, demanding Secretary Buttigieg take action. See https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3856169-jim-banks-calls-on-buttigieg-to-correct-

covering-of-jesus-artwork-at-merchant-marine-academy/

Quote:

Banks cited a Supreme Court ruling in 2019, saying that religious symbolism in historic displays does not violate the Constitution.

Apparently the Court said that, but that doens't stop the Executive from
using a stricter standard, does it?

If I were an attorney for DOT/MARAD/USMMA, what you posted would be my position. I think you put it really well, too.

I am trying to imagine what the premise of a lawsuit by these Congressmen's constituents would be, to get the curtains removed. The first four Congressmen (Garcia, Green, Pfluger and Davidson) to object asserted that the two recent SCOTUS opinions "

stressed that government intervention to unduly remove religious symbols could violate the Establishment Clause."

How so?

The facts: This bigger-than-life Jesus image hangs in one of the biggest and most prominent meeting rooms at the academy. The Academy has ordered that the curtains be closed for any mandatory meeting in this room. The setting is not the same as the

Bladensburg and Texas cases, where people can choose not to be in the presence of the Peace Cross and Ten Commandment monuments.

I thought in Bladensburg, the monument is right in the middle of an intersection. To avoid it, they have to drive a different route to
where they are going, and if they are going to the property across the
street, there is no alternative.

I don't know anything about Texas.

I do not see how covering the painting during mandatory meetings is 'unduly removing' the Jesus image. Plus as noted above SCOTUS has drawn a line between civilian and military First Amendment rights, saying the military of necessity can be more

restrictive at times.

The question to me is how much heat there will be and how much the USMMA/MARAD/DOT are willing to take?

If I were Secretary Buttigieg, then I would find a military base Christian chapel that had room for the enormous painting; ship the painting off; remind people that now, anyone who wants to see this historic Christian painting can do so; and move onto

getting, say, our highways rebuilt.

Yes, why should one have to be merchant mariner to see it? It should be available to everyone.

It irks that these Congressmen prefer a Christian-biased setting in a military meeting room to a non-biased setting. Among other things, I think this is a terrible lesson for soldiers/sailors/officers/midshipmen/civil servants.

Tough toenails. I don't think they really care what you or I think.

[Congressman Banks] also added that more than 4,000 community members of the academy, including midshipmen and alumni, signed a petition demanding that the covering be removed and a plaque be added to demonstrate the historical significance,

according to the letter.

“I support their request and believe there is ample evidence that previously established lega precedent negates the ‘constitutional concerns’ of an anti-Christian activist who is so extreme that he has described the Wreaths Across America

program as ‘the Annual Government-Sanctioned Desecration of Non-Christian Veterans,'�? he said in the letter, which was first reported by Fox News.

I don't who said this or what all he said, but the details of Wreaths
Across America are interesting

All I know is that the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) has objected to these wreaths being placed on dead soldiers/sailors/officers graves without permission of the families.

Yes, that's not right either. In a previous discussion elsewhere, I
said that I didn't object to, without asking permission (I assume no one
asks permission, but maybe I'm wrong), erecting a cross at the location
of a traffic death (Has everyone seen these**, the sinmple wood cross
made with 1" or 1.5" wide "strips"?) because they are a widely
recognized, stark reminder of death and placed at places that are
dangerous, often inherently dangerous because of a curve etc. So they
are a public service, to get drivers to slow down or pay attention.
I don't object to their placing them but if it were family or a Jewish friend, I would go out and remove the horizontal part, and I hope
someone would do that for me.

**I saw some in Indiana in 1964, at a curve (the only curve between Indianapolis and the edge of Chicago. They were there for years until
maybe they fell down.) and the same style in Maryland just last year.

The wreaths are always placed around Christmas. The MRFF's clients contend that the wreaths are either a pagan or Christian symbol. The wreaths desecrate the graves of atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jewish people and so on.

I know you were trying to be polite, nice, bue the proper term here is
"Jews". You didn't call them atheist people, Buddhist people, or
Muslim people. Only for Jews did you avoid calling us by our name.
When people avoid the words Jew and Jews, the message it sends is that
Jew is a dirty word. So you end up doing the opposite of what you've
intended.

Of course, if the phrase were Spanish, Swedish, and Jewish people, then parallism would make sense. But if it were Spaniards, Swedes, and Jewish people, that would send the same bad message.

And in the bulk of what one sees in print, at least in English, even
when it's not as obvious as here, perhaps because only Jews are
mentioned in the paragraph, the constant use of Jewish person and Jewish
people and often the total absence of Jew or Jews from the same writing
still leaves the subliminal message that Jew is a dirty word. Again,
sending the opposite message from what almost all of these writers
intend.

I think MRFF is right.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 11:39:16 PM UTC-6, micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:53:21 -0800 (PST), Elle
N <honda...> wrote:

I am trying to imagine what the premise of a lawsuit by these Congressmen's constituents would be, to get the curtains removed. The first four Congressmen (Garcia, Green, Pfluger and Davidson) to object asserted that the two recent SCOTUS opinions "

stressed that government intervention to unduly remove religious symbols could violate the Establishment Clause."

How so?

See for one the 2019 Bladensburg Peace Cross 7-2 decision, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf. Justice Alito in the majority wrote:

At least four considerations show that retaining established, religiously expressive monuments, symbols, and practices is quite different from erecting or adopting new ones. ... Fourth, when time’s passage imbues a religiously expressive monument,
symbol, or practice with this kind of familiarity and historical significance, removing it may no longer appear neutral, especially to the local community. The passage of time thus gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality. Pp. 16–21.

Pages 16-21 are section II-B. Roberts, Breyer, Kagan and Kavanaugh joined Alito for II-B.

A journalist at dailykos deconstructed the Congressmen's case law assertions here:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/2/15/2153138/-Five-MAGA-congressmen-on-a-crusade-to-get-Merchant-Marine-Academy-ginormous-Jesus-painting-uncovered

The facts: This bigger-than-life Jesus image hangs in one of the biggest and most prominent meeting rooms at the academy. The Academy has ordered that the curtains be closed for any mandatory meeting in this room. The setting is not the same as the

Bladensburg and Texas cases, where people can choose not to be in the presence of the Peace Cross and Ten Commandment monuments.

I thought in Bladensburg, the monument is right in the middle of an intersection. To avoid it, they have to drive a different route to
where they are going, and if they are going to the property across the street, there is no alternative.

Apart from the few seconds of driving by, those in vehicles are not forced to sit, stand or otherwise be in the presence of the peace cross.

The academy meeting room had been used for honor board meetings, for one.

Monday it appears the academy changed its position again. Now the room is off-limits for any meeting, even if all attendants say they are fine meeting in the room.

I don't know anything about Texas.

See Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), concerning a ten Commandments monument in Texas, standing among many other monuments on public ground.

I know you were trying to be polite,

No, Micky. In my lifetime what I have witnessed is that something like 99 times out of 100 when WASP people use the term "Jews," they mean it in derision. I am not Jewish. Going back many generations my background is WASP. I am not comfortable using the
phrase as you direct. I also do not use the term "Christians." One of the reasons I do not do this is because I have heard people use this term in derision as well. "The Jews... " or "The Christians... " or "a Jew" or "a Christian" is nearly always the
start of some blanket generalization that one can count on being bigotry.

I have lost a lot of interest in general in trying to get terms "right" for cultural issues, from transgender issues to race issues to more. When a certain phraseology becomes widely accepted, especially by the group being named in a particular phrase, I
try to use it. Go ahead and beat me up.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 16 Feb 2023 08:18:14 -0800 (PST), Elle
N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:

I know you were trying to be polite,

No, Micky. In my lifetime what I have witnessed is that something like 99 times out of 100 when WASP people use the term "Jews," they mean it in derision.

So doesn't that mean you *were* trying to be polite, by avoiding their practice? This is just a logical quibble; it doesn't much matter.

In my lifetime, it's been lower than 99/100 but the remedy for their
attempts to insult Jews is for people of good will to use "Jew" in a
neutral or positive way.

I am not Jewish. Going back many generations my background is WASP. I am not comfortable using the phrase as you direct.

If you use it that way a few times, you will soon become comfortable.

If you knew someone, say your own child, who said, "Myself and Jane went
to the park", would you say, "Well, she's confortable saying it that
way, so that's the way she should say it"? Or would you urge her to
say "Jane and I...". If you grew up saying, "I brung the box in", would
you just keep saying it that way because it was comfortable? And all
the other mistakes of English usage, should people who learned them just
stay with them all their lives because now they are comfortable?

I also do not use the term "Christians." One of the reasons I do not do this is because I have heard people use this term in derision as well.

You are letting evil people control your use of English.

And you've aligned yourself with those very people, who use Jew as a
term of derision, because when you don't want to deride Jews, you don't
use that word. YOUR CHOICE NOT TO USE IT CONFIRMS that it is a word of derision. Congratulations.

There is NO word that can't be used as insult. You should have heard my
uncle say Republican, or my other uncle say Democrat. But when people
use either of those words neutrally or positively, it dispels the
impression that my uncles would give about them. You could do that for
Jew and Jews, but you've lost interest.

And if "Jew" is a dirty word, what does it say about Jews themselves?
Don't you want to do something against that idea? Instead of promoting
it.

The more people of good will who use Jew neutrally or positively, the
less effect the bigots will have.

"The Jews... " or "The Christians... " or "a Jew" or "a Christian" is nearly always the start of some blanket generalization that one can count on being bigotry.

You must be reading the wrong things, or you specialize in bigoted
writers. And I've seen bigotry that uses "Jewish people".

I have lost a lot of interest in general in trying to get terms "right" for cultural issues, from transgender issues to race issues to more.

So you're tuning out and dropping out, and yet you have time to write
about a mere painting at the Merchant Marine Academy. It's worth the
time to dump on 4 Republican congressmen. Yet when there is an issue of
you yourself doing the wrong thing, and the issue is brought right
before you, you don't want to be bothered. Wow.

When a certain phraseology becomes widely accepted, especially by the group being named in a particular phrase, I try to use it.

In answer to this last phrase, let me tell you that most Jews call
themselves Jews.

Go ahead and beat me up.

Well, you're stubborn, and in many cases stubbornness is an aspect of
strength, but here it's a mistake. It's passive bigotry. "Active
bigots use Jew with disdain, so I'll accept that it's a dirty word and I
won't use it either." That's what you're saying. Are you happy
teaching people that Jew is a dirty word?

You deleted the rest of my explanation so for you to ponder it again,
and for readers who come in in the middle and other readers who are not committed to a bad practice, I'll repeat it:

You had said "The wreaths desecrate the graves of atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jewish people and so on."
And I replied:
I know you were trying to be polite, nice, bue the proper term here is
"Jews". You didn't call them atheist people, Buddhist people, or
Muslim people. Only for Jews did you avoid calling us by our name.
When people avoid the words Jew and Jews, the message it sends is that
Jew is a dirty word. So you end up doing the opposite of what you've
intended.

Of course, if the phrase were Spanish, Swedish, and Jewish people, then parallism would make sense. But if it were Spaniards, Swedes, and Jewish people, that would send the same bad message.

And in the bulk of what one sees in print, at least in English, even
when it's not as obvious as here, perhaps because only Jews are
mentioned in the paragraph, the constant use of Jewish person and Jewish
people and often the total absence of Jew or Jews from the same writing
still leaves the subliminal message that Jew is a dirty word. Again,
sending the opposite message from what almost all of these writers
intend.





--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Micky, I agree best writing practices calls for the sentence to which you took offense to be: "The wreaths desecrate the graves of atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and so on."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)