|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 30, 2012 19:09:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jul 31, 2012 11:05:34 GMT -5
Well, I guess it is old news and a non issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jul 31, 2012 12:14:02 GMT -5
I'd heard about it. It's a sign that the property is no longer the sole turf of the DRT. If the State is not going to do a lot of things like this, it will probably be a non issue. But I'm wondering what other changes they may want to make. I'm not sure what motivated this change in alcohol policy. Does the State think it will make more money on rental of the Hall if they allow booze?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Jul 31, 2012 17:35:01 GMT -5
Does the State think it will make more money on rental of the Hall if they allow booze? That's how I'm reading this, Allen. Personally, I don't have an issue with it. As the "jefe" said, the building in question was not even part of or with the Alamo's orignal complex. How many other establishments across from or next to the Alamo, and that are not on turf where the Alamo stood, sell beer and spirits? Seems pretty silly to me to have such a ban. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by Hollowhorn on Jul 31, 2012 18:07:13 GMT -5
This situation has been nagging at me since day one, there are two purported issues here, the first issue (and the least important one) is the proposal to allow alcohol on the grounds of the Alamo, to me, this is a non issue. No-one is proposing alfresco bars in front of the chapel, no-one is proposing cafe bars within the Alamo compound, here is the relevant passage:
Does anyone here seriously believe that the consumption of alcohol in the Alamo Hall will somehow detract from the heroism shown by the 180 / 250 defenders of the Alamo compound who fought & died in March or 1836? Did not a fair few of those same defenders enjoy a snifter or two from time to time? Were they not, in the end, men of flesh & blood rather than the proposed saints that they have become since that day?
The second issue (and the more important one) is the issue of censorship, Jerry Patterson has told the 'Daughters' to hold their collective tongues, to keep 'internal' issues 'internal' until such times as discussions on 'internal' issues have been fully debated.
Running to the press with every imagined slight. will, in the end, do the 'Daughters' no good. They will increasingly be seen as a vested interest who wish to see no change at the 'Shrine' unless it is they & they alone who decide such change. The 'Daughters' have had many years to effect changes for the better with respect to the way the 'Alamo' is run & perceived, history will be their final judge, I wish them luck, they may well need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Aug 1, 2012 9:59:42 GMT -5
Good words. I also think that visitors to that non Alamo building shoud be able to drink a toast to the drinker defenders, who died there. The DAR definitely jump the foot and stuck their gun in their mouth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Aug 1, 2012 11:47:20 GMT -5
I'll be honest I have a very mixed opinion about this, on the one hand it is church grounds and at least in my opinion a hallowed site (Yes, I know which building is being talked about) but is drinking encouraged at the battleship Arizona, or our national battlefield cemeteries? These are places of contemplation and reflection, as should be the Alamo grounds.
On the other hand, I find the puritanical attitude toward drinking hypocritical when one considers everything else that takes place in the Alamo grounds that is tacky and disrespectful.
While I personally don't have a problem with drinking and enjoy a night at Ernie's or the Menger as much as anyone, I don't think it is the most appropriate use for the Alamo grounds.
Probably, doesn't make any sense but that's the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidpenrod on Aug 1, 2012 12:19:01 GMT -5
I dont see alcohol consumption on the grounds of a church, especially a Catholic church - where it is the center piece of our Mass - as disrespectful. Also, many Catholic churches have bars in their basements, like mine - although the Alamo apparently does not have a basement. So there's no insult or disrespect there. Furthermore, I have a gut feeling that many of the Alamo defenders would not mind that folks are consuming adult beverages at or near the Shrine - given their own predilections. Except for Travis, of course. I imagine that like most modern soldiers, who are embarrassed, even ashamed, to be called heroes, the Alamo defenders would be a little mortified that somebody had raised a "Shrine" in their honor and considered it a sacred place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Aug 1, 2012 14:54:23 GMT -5
I don´t think it´s a problem serving alcohol at private (!) events at Alamo Hall, since the old fire station never was part of the historic battle site. It´s the DRT who later on decided to make it part of the modern Alamo grounds, but that does´nt make it part of the historical site.
Besides, I don´t think there´s any danger of Alamo Hall turning into a rowdy bar full of drunks, just because people are allowed to have a few drinks at private events.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Aug 1, 2012 16:02:14 GMT -5
I don't see anything really wrong with allowing alcohol at functions that are held in Alamo Hall, provided these are low-key social evetns, rather than a night of disco and partying to whoever wants to rent the place. Then it could be the camel's nose poking beneath the tent. I don't know what rules or restrictions apply here, if any. I see no real danger in this if that is the extent of it, and I agree that the building is only part of the Alamo grounds by artitrary choice. It really has no connection to the battle. As Stuart once observed, most of what's left of the Alamo is outside the Alamo!
That said, I do get a creeping feeling of apprehension when I think that this, of all the things that the state might do to improve the Alamo, is what it focused on. Unless this is a peripheral issue, it's not a great sign of how the new custondians are thinking in terms of what's best for the Alamo or what should be done for the place.
|
|
