I guess you forgot all about Dekejis, demonic servant of Navah, Lord of the Pitch Shadows, Master of Deceit and Evil Dreams, Lord of the Last Illusion, The Merchant of Death,The Unseen Lifter of Lives, Trancer the Cat, Wealth’s Worry.
That’s probably what she was thinking of.
Please enlighten me. When did panthers lose their place in the in the Felidae family?
[sub]I know it’s the details that count. That is why I have the 27B/6 in triplicate.[/sub]
But what about the TPS cover sheet?
Let me insert a little legal analysis among all of this pointing and laughing at this idiot woman.
A key fact that the District Court found in the Alabama case was that Chief Justice Moore installed the Ten Commandments as a monument for the purpose of endorsing the Christian religion (or perhaps the Judeo-Christian religious tradition). As such, it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in that it was an official action of a government official endorsing one religious belief over another.
The linked article makes clear that the sleeping panther is a monument to a bit of municipal history of Fort Worth: “The image of a sleeping panther has long been a part of Fort Worth history, beginning in the late 1800s, when a Dallas attorney reportedly claimed after visiting Cowtown that ‘things were so quiet, he had seen a panther asleep on Main Street.’” Accordingly, it was clearly not installed with a religious purpose, even though some religion may find a panther to be a religious symbol.
In short, the woman has no legal case for removal of the statue.
Aren’t panthers actually members of the rodent family ? We just had a thread about this 
Since even newborn kittens have sharp, pointy teeth, bottle feeding is usually advisable, rather than giving them the tit:rolleyes:
ooo!
That statute is in my town!
I should go by tomorrow and put a sign up or something!
“Save me from looney dingbats!”
Google on “furry.”
I suppose the fur would fly if someone painted the ten commandments on the cat statute.
Please, Cervaise, no matter how bountiful and/or beautiful you may be, don’t subject less net-savvy Dopers to that. At least, not without a warning.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
Speaking of which, what exactly is a pagan staute? If I decide to put a statue of…oh, lets just say me… does that mean I worship myself higher then god? 
And thanks Billdo for injecting a little reality into this thread
This point has been beaten to death. The 14th amendment makes the requirements of the First Amendment applicable to the states, and “making laws” applies to governmental actions as well as statutes passed by the legislature. There is ample and lengthy legal precedent to back this up.
I’ll even pull out some cites for you if you promise to read them.
Damn, that’s a pretty cool statue.
But it’s pagan? Da’hell?
What has this chick been smoking and where can I get some?
Anybody here ever heard of Hindu?
As in, “Okay, Kitty’s out, but will a hen do?” That sort of thing?
hehe… that is not a cat statue… its a panther one. That I know of only the Olmecs venerated panthers… not sure that counts as paganism.
Next they will ask to remove the Donkey and the Elephant from the political arena… pagans too ?
Roger that, Blaron. I don’t disagree with you about the statutes.
I merely believe that simply posting the Ten Commandments doesn’t come close to an establishment of religion. I’m aware that the court decision doesn’t agree with this view.
Courts aren’t immune to politics, as everyone well knows. Since, in my mind, the Ten Commandments passed constitutional muster, the decision was made to remove them because of political opinions that mandated that Christian symbols shouldn’t be on display in governmental buildings, lest others be offended.
There’s nothing wrong with deciding this through normal political practices. But deciding it in the courts and wrapping the whole thing in constitutional language is disturbing to me. It makes far more of the display than necessary, and inspires people to “up the ante.”
The Ten Commandments display in question used to be a picture on the wall. Justice Moore bought and installed that big granite monstrosity after someone made a federal case about it, literally.
Now we have a crackpot in Texas arguing for the removal of a statue she is offended by. We may all laugh and scoff, but her reasoning is nearly identical to those of the opponents of the Ten Commandments display. She is offended. She is ticked off. She sees disrespect to her beliefs in a government display.
Anyone who laughs at her should look at themselves in the mirror, and ask what offends them, and whether a court case to salve their offended sensebilities is always the way to go.
No, I get “offended” or “ticked off” by particularly stupid bumper stickers. The government declaring that “This set of beliefs about God are correct, and believing this way about God is what makes one a moral person and a good citizen” is dangerous. And if the government were actually telling the people that in order to be good citizens they need to be panther-worshipping pagans, that would be dangerous too; only that’s not what’s happening here, and no amount of hand-waving will make it so.
Without even looking to the merits of the lady’s position, the mere fact that she lost a state wide election as a Republican, in Texas of all places, ought to tell you something.
[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Mr. Moto
There’s nothing wrong with deciding this through normal political practices. But deciding it in the courts and wrapping the whole thing in constitutional language is disturbing to me. It makes far more of the display than necessary, and inspires people to “up the ante.”
[/QUOTE]
But the fact remains that there is a constitutional issue. And if something is unconstitutional then it can’t be decided by normal political practices.
You seem to argue that it’s not unconstitutional because it’s not establishing a state religion. But the First Amendment doesn’t prohibit only the outright establishment of a state religion. It prohibits laws “regarding establishment of religion” which, by extremely reasonable interpretation means that things that tend towards establishment are barred.
And the fact that a moron in Texas “ups the ante” doesn’t mean the Constitution shouldn’t be enforced.
The reasoning isn’t nearly identical except in the most superficial way. The First Amendment doesn’t prohibit displays that a loser with a clear religious agenda decides she’ll pretend offends her. Put more succinctly, the arguments are different because one of them is idiotic.
Moore put a Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse to recognize God’s law and His authority over this country. The panther was put in because it used to be a sleepy town. The reasoning isn’t the same. The fact that she threw in what she thought were talismanic words like “First Amendment” doesn’t make her argument the same (and I apologize to the Chicago Reader if my use of the word “talismanic” causes Ms. Castillo to sue for violation of freedom of religion.)
The monument isn’t coming down because it offended somebody. It’s coming down because it violates the Constitution. Just because Ms. Castillo is offended and making a stupid argument doesn’t mean everybody who’s offended makes a stupid argument.