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