Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Gettysburg Civil War Church to close? - Civil War News/ Press Releases - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Tue Jul 27th, 2010 05:25 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
Michael F. Blake
Member
 

Joined: Fri May 7th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 82
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/news/local/article_56f59bfc-9937-11df-a45c-001cc4c03286.html

The article covers the recently built (2006) church that re-creates what a church in the CW-era may have looked like.

Seems there are some soreheads there who have suddenly realized that the church does not meet certain demands (Americans with Disabilities act for one) and want the church torn down.

I, for one, like the church and visited it when I was in town.  I think it is a neat re-creation that gives visitors a feeling of what it may have been like back then, plus it holds a service for those who wish to worship.



 Posted: Tue Jul 27th, 2010 11:28 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
pamc153PA
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jun 14th, 2008
Location: Boyertown, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 407
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I've never been there, but I'm wondering if this was what used to be a tent a couple years ago. I think that if they intend to make it a permanent structure ("they" meaning the owners) they should make it up to code, which means everyone can enjoy it. Was it accessible to anyone in a wheelchair or a walker, Mike? Hate to see CW lovers who have a hard time getting around unable to see it. I'd hate to think the borough council was just after a buck (ha!).

Pam



 Posted: Wed Jul 28th, 2010 04:50 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
Michael F. Blake
Member
 

Joined: Fri May 7th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 82
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

As I remember it, it was pretty easily accessible for anyone.



 Posted: Wed Jul 28th, 2010 06:16 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
j harold 587
Member


Joined: Tue Jun 12th, 2007
Location: Wilmington, Ohio USA
Posts: 166
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It was a lot with a burned out house that no one wanted to deal with before it was cleaned up to start the church. It was a tent and still has a canvas roof just like the Christian Sanitary Commission set to the field for regimental use. It is intended to be a reasonable representation of a Church that would have been attended by Civil War soldiers North or South. As such it would not have plumbing or other modern zoning requirements.

I am glad I do not have to decide this issue. I know here in Ohio if a structure is on runners it is not considered a permenent structure. I wonder if it being designated as a Church exempts the property from realestate taxes. I know the folks operating it do not collect any fees.

 



 Posted: Thu Jul 29th, 2010 07:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Oh how I'm sick of all this political correctness. Listen......its a shame some people cant do what other people can. But why on earth would you ruin it for everyone when only......what........5% cant see it. Too me its ridiculous and selfish. If we have to cater to every signal person with an ailment nobody will be able to see or do anything except sit in our own living rooms. Whatever happened to common sense?



 Posted: Thu Jul 29th, 2010 10:48 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Old Sorrel wrote: Oh how I'm sick of all this political correctness. Listen......its a shame some people cant do what other people can. But why on earth would you ruin it for everyone when only......what........5% cant see it. Too me its ridiculous and selfish. If we have to cater to every signal person with an ailment nobody will be able to see or do anything except sit in our own living rooms. Whatever happened to common sense?Did you really just make an argument for discriminating against the handicapped?

Last edited on Thu Jul 29th, 2010 10:57 pm by barrydancer



 Posted: Thu Jul 29th, 2010 11:09 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
TimK
Member
 

Joined: Thu Apr 10th, 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 311
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

As someone that cares for my wheelchair confined mother on a regular basis, I find Old Sorrel's definitions of ridiculous, selfish, and common sense to be totally opposite of mine. The next time she wants to expand her knowledge or just get out of her house, I will tell her that she should just stay home and watch television because it wouldn't be politically correct to get in the way of the physically able.



 Posted: Thu Jul 29th, 2010 11:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Dead-on correct Tim. I'm so tired of people using the term "political correctness" for anything they disagree with. To call equal accessibility for all "selfish" is - trying to find a good word for it - sorry, I can't.



 Posted: Fri Jul 30th, 2010 03:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Im sorry folks, but i feel compassion for people who are handicapped...so lets please stop with the dramatics..:)

I have a friend and a family member who are both crippled and confined to wheel chairs.....and when stories like this come up.....they both get pissed. Im sick of it and so are they. My friend is a huge CW buff and enjoys going to Gettysburg with me. And we get to see alot.......But he also realized that he has his limits and that's the fact. He doesn't want to see this church closed because 1 or 2 cant.

I told him about this post and what the responses were,  he said, I'm paraphrasing...

"If were gonna go down this road we might as well close the PA monument since I cant climb to the top, we might as well close the that monument on LRT since I cant climb it, close both observation towers since I cant climb them, allow no one to cross Pickett's Charge fields since there are no handicap paths going to the other side, close down any restaurant that i cant get my wheelchair in, any souvenir store that has no wheelchair access must be closed since i cant get in, and any store that i can get in that has a second story with stuff must be closed since i cant climb the steps, Its embarrassing for me when stories like this come up. And I agree with Marty, it PC gone wild......again.

That was his words people not mine. And I agree with him 100%. I for one have a very bad back with a half a disc in my lower spine. There are lots of things i cant do do to my condition. I love roller coasters, but you dont see me trying to shut down amusement parks because I cant go on the rides. I feel bad for those people who are handicapped, but Im not about to support the closing of anything just because a few cant do it. Why should we all be denied. We shouldn't.

 



 Posted: Fri Jul 30th, 2010 06:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
9Bama
Member
 

Joined: Mon May 10th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Old Sorrel wrote: Im sorry folks, but i feel compassion for people who are handicapped...so lets please stop with the dramatics..:)

I have a friend and a family member who are both crippled and confined to wheel chairs.....and when stories like this come up.....they both get pissed. Im sick of it and so are they. My friend is a huge CW buff and enjoys going to Gettysburg with me. And we get to see alot.......But he also realized that he has his limits and that's the fact. He doesn't want to see this church closed because 1 or 2 cant.

I told him about this post and what the responses were,  he said, I'm paraphrasing...

"If were gonna go down this road we might as well close the PA monument since I cant climb to the top, we might as well close the that monument on LRT since I cant climb it, close both observation towers since I cant climb them, allow no one to cross Pickett's Charge fields since there are no handicap paths going to the other side, close down any restaurant that i cant get my wheelchair in, any souvenir store that has no wheelchair access must be closed since i cant get in, and any store that i can get in that has a second story with stuff must be closed since i cant climb the steps, Its embarrassing for me when stories like this come up. And I agree with Marty, it PC gone wild......again.

That was his words people not mine. And I agree with him 100%. I for one have a very bad back with a half a disc in my lower spine. There are lots of things i cant do do to my condition. I love roller coasters, but you dont see me trying to shut down amusement parks because I cant go on the rides. I feel bad for those people who are handicapped, but Im not about to support the closing of anything just because a few cant do it. Why should we all be denied. We shouldn't.

 


Sorrel,

I spent the first 10 years of my professional life as a rehabilitation counselor and so I also know a little bit about accessability issues. Your friend is right on target. There are things he cannot do. There are things you cannot do and there are things I cannot do. That is called life and it is unfair.  I don't know where we got the idea that everyone is entitled to go everywhere, but we seem to have it and it is wrongheaded.

My hat is off to your friend as he seems to me to have his head screwed on straight.

Ed



 Posted: Fri Jul 30th, 2010 10:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
TimK
Member
 

Joined: Thu Apr 10th, 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 311
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I too commend your friend, Sorrel. He sounds like a very reasonable and rational person.

I would still like to point out though, that although he is not able to climb the observation decks or the PA monument, he is still able to access the Visitor Center, the Cyclorama, the museum, and for that matter, the battlefield itself. It was not just "politically correct" for the Gettysburg Foundation to make the building handicap accessible, it was the right thing to do. According to your logic, why bother spending the money and doing this if only 5% or so of the visitors to Gettysburg are handicapped? We all have limitations of some sort, but to try to do the right thing does not always fall under the ominous umbrella you call "politically correct", it is just the correct thing to do.



 Posted: Sat Jul 31st, 2010 04:17 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
9Bama
Member
 

Joined: Mon May 10th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TimK wrote: I too commend your friend, Sorrel. He sounds like a very reasonable and rational person.

I would still like to point out though, that although he is not able to climb the observation decks or the PA monument, he is still able to access the Visitor Center, the Cyclorama, the museum, and for that matter, the battlefield itself. It was not just "politically correct" for the Gettysburg Foundation to make the building handicap accessible, it was the right thing to do. According to your logic, why bother spending the money and doing this if only 5% or so of the visitors to Gettysburg are handicapped? We all have limitations of some sort, but to try to do the right thing does not always fall under the ominous umbrella you call "politically correct", it is just the correct thing to do.


Sorry tim,

Youhave that backwards.

Those things are done due to public law as they should be becaues they are public property and should be accessable to all... private property is a different animal all toghether..

Where does the government get off telling a private busisnessman what he must or must not do with his property?



 Posted: Sat Jul 31st, 2010 01:57 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TimK wrote: I too commend your friend, Sorrel. He sounds like a very reasonable and rational person.

I would still like to point out though, that although he is not able to climb the observation decks or the PA monument, he is still able to access the Visitor Center, the Cyclorama, the museum, and for that matter, the battlefield itself. It was not just "politically correct" for the Gettysburg Foundation to make the building handicap accessible, it was the right thing to do. According to your logic, why bother spending the money and doing this if only 5% or so of the visitors to Gettysburg are handicapped? We all have limitations of some sort, but to try to do the right thing does not always fall under the ominous umbrella you call "politically correct", it is just the correct thing to do.


 

Hello Timk,

I have to agree with 9Bama. The point is not new public buildings that put handicap access areas for those who need them. I dont think anybody has a problem with that. But when the Govt steps in and tells a private land owner what he can and cant do as far handicap access is concerned is where my friend and i have a huge problem with that.  So that said, if we use the Gettysburg Govt's lodgic, no handycap access so the church must close to every bussness in town, Gettysburg would be a ghost town.

BTW: MY friend Dave, says thanks for your kind words. Both you and 9Bama.



 Posted: Sat Jul 31st, 2010 08:50 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

9Bama wrote

Sorry tim,

Youhave that backwards.

Those things are done due to public law as they should be becaues they are public property and should be accessable to all... private property is a different animal all toghether..

Where does the government get off telling a private busisnessman what he must or must not do with his property?

Got it.  Private businessman.  If he doesn't want to provide handicap access, government doesn't have the right to require him to do so.  The handicapped who want to shop or visit the establishment should just get over it. 

How about, I dunno, sprinkler systems or fire exits?  Does the state or local government have a right to mandate those, or as a private businessman can he set up shop in a plywood shanty and force people to work and shop in unsafe conditions?

How about if he doesn't want to serve black people, or women?  Can the government force the issue or does the private businessman get to serve only who he wants?

Does a private business that caters to the public get to pick and choose which members of the public it serves?  I would argue it doesn't.

In regards to the Gettysburg church, like it or not, there are numerous structural, electrical, and fire standards that new buildings have to meet.  Were this an actual historic building, there wouldn't be an issue.  As a modern reproduction, however, it has to meet local, state, and federal codes. 

Last edited on Sat Jul 31st, 2010 10:54 pm by barrydancer



 Posted: Sun Aug 1st, 2010 03:32 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hello barrydancer, how are you.
Got it.  Private businessman.  If he doesn't want to provide handicap access, government doesn't have the right to require him to do so.  The handicapped who want to shop or visit the establishment should just get over it. 
 

Yes. Just like I have to get over it when it comes to things I liked to do, but cant now because of my condition. Its a private business. What give us the right to tell him what to do with his or her business. We have no right. If we dont like it, we have right to not shop there.
How about, I dunno, sprinkler systems or fire exits?  Does the state or local government have a right to mandate those, or as a private businessman can he set up shop in a plywood shanty and force people to work and shop in unsafe conditions? 
 

Now that is a different egg in the basket. That has to do with safety. Having a handicap ramp is not about safety. Two different topics. 

How about if he doesn't want to serve black people, or women?  Can the government force the issue or does the private businessman get to serve only who he wants?

 

Unfortunately, he would have that right........I dont like it, but he would have that right. As a matter of fact it being done now. I remember reading a news article about a black couple who owes a business and they are refusing to sell or buy from whites. After the story broke, whites in the area started doing the same thing....it was not a pretty picture.

Me personally, I think it ridiculous to do that, but if you own the business, then you have the right to do so. Now matter how much you and I might hate it.

 Does a private business that caters to the public get to pick and choose which members of the public it serves?  I would argue it doesn't.


 

I believe it does. They forked out the money to build their business and therefore they should have the right to run it as they see fit....and if we the people dont like their business practices, then we have the right to not shop there with our money.

Look..... if the church has safety hazards, fine......they need to be addressed. But handicap access is not a safety hazard.

Hope all is well

Cheers

Marty



 Posted: Sun Aug 1st, 2010 05:16 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
TimK
Member
 

Joined: Thu Apr 10th, 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 311
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I'm a notorious fence sitter. I admit it. While I have friends that lean both left and right, I find good and bad on both sides. I find Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore equally irritating. That's who I am. Chastise me at will.

I can understand what Bama and Sorrel are saying. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. Maybe the "government" shouldn't be telling people how to do business. But if everybody did business the right way, the "government" wouldn't have to legislate that we should all be treated equally. That we should insure the accessibility and safety of customers in our place of business. So, if business people don't want to follow the laws of their elected officials, they have the option of not owning a business. That's my take.

I think what got my goat was what I perceive as the incorrect use of "politically correct" gone wild. If you wanted to say "politics" gone wild, I could understand it, even if I don't agree with it. When I think of "politically correct" being out of control, I think of garbage men being called sanitary engineers, short people called vertically challenged, and maybe bald people called - I don't know, whatever they want to be called.

I have a hard time throwing safety, basic equal human rights, and health issues in with some of the silliness I mentioned. Whatever you want to call these issues - I can't call it "PC gone wild".

And Sorrel - I would also like to see (hear) your Civil War buff friend chime in on some of his favorite CW topics. I think I pretty much know how most people that post on this board feel. Some more new blood wouldn't hurt keep some of the interest alive.

Just my take.

Tim



 Posted: Sun Aug 1st, 2010 05:24 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
Old Sorrel
Member


Joined: Thu Mar 15th, 2007
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 66
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TimK wrote: I'm a notorious fence sitter. I admit it. While I have friends that lean both left and right, I find good and bad on both sides. I find Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore equally irritating. That's who I am. Chastise me at will.

I can understand what Bama and Sorrel are saying. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it. Maybe the "government" shouldn't be telling people how to do business. But if everybody did business the right way, the "government" wouldn't have to legislate that we should all be treated equally. That we should insure the accessibility and safety of customers in our place of business. So, if business people don't want to follow the laws of their elected officials, they have the option of not owning a business. That's my take.

I think what got my goat was what I perceive as the incorrect use of "politically correct" gone wild. If you wanted to say "politics" gone wild, I could understand it, even if I don't agree with it. When I think of "politically correct" being out of control, I think of garbage men being called sanitary engineers, short people called vertically challenged, and maybe bald people called - I don't know, whatever they want to be called.

I have a hard time throwing safety, basic equal human rights, and health issues in with some of the silliness I mentioned. Whatever you want to call these issues - I can't call it "PC gone wild".

And Sorrel - I would also like to see (hear) your Civil War buff friend chime in on some of his favorite CW topics. I think I pretty much know how most people that post on this board feel. Some more new blood wouldn't hurt keep some of the interest alive.

Just my take.

Tim


Hi Tim,

Tim, I have tried many times to get him to join in on forum discussions. He wont bite. lol........I've told him about how much I have learned from others on here and on other forums. But for some reason he's not very interested in forums. I'll try again....lol

Cheers



 Posted: Mon Aug 2nd, 2010 03:15 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
9Bama
Member
 

Joined: Mon May 10th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

barrydancer wrote: 9Bama wrote

Sorry tim,

Youhave that backwards.

Those things are done due to public law as they should be becaues they are public property and should be accessable to all... private property is a different animal all toghether..

Where does the government get off telling a private busisnessman what he must or must not do with his property?

Got it.  Private businessman.  If he doesn't want to provide handicap access, government doesn't have the right to require him to do so.  The handicapped who want to shop or visit the establishment should just get over it. 

How about, I dunno, sprinkler systems or fire exits?  Does the state or local government have a right to mandate those, or as a private businessman can he set up shop in a plywood shanty and force people to work and shop in unsafe conditions?

How about if he doesn't want to serve black people, or women?  Can the government force the issue or does the private businessman get to serve only who he wants?

Does a private business that caters to the public get to pick and choose which members of the public it serves?  I would argue it doesn't.

In regards to the Gettysburg church, like it or not, there are numerous structural, electrical, and fire standards that new buildings have to meet.  Were this an actual historic building, there wouldn't be an issue.  As a modern reproduction, however, it has to meet local, state, and federal codes. 


I suppose you have to define your terms... there are thousands of businesses that fit the criteria you discuss...serving the public..... there are thousands of businesses that do not... a good example is this forum. Should Joe have to provide handicapped access to his business when he does not deal with the public at THAT location? At what cost? Who pays for it?

AS time goes on you will finde more and more businesses that serve very specialiazed publics and often not even in the state the business is physically in.



 Current time is 12:57 pm
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.5235 seconds (8% database + 92% PHP). 34 queries executed.