Separation of chuch/state? Not really it seems - fed court orders cross down - Bush signs law transferring cross to DOD

[episodic]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

there are actually other symbols in the community as well from other religions is what I understand listening to a San Diego talk show host. But an athesist or agnostic complaining about the christian symbol is what caused the problem.

The site was actually a war memorial and its right that the communities will was upheld over the one person it offended.

I can only hope someday we come back to the original meaning of seperation of church and state and get away from the PC nonsense it has become.

 

[jackschmittusa]

daniel49

Haven't you learned yet that " the communities will" is a lousy argument? All you need do is carry it to an extreme to show that. What if the community wanted to ignore child labor laws, or allow slavery, polygimy, etc..

State and federal constitutions define a minimum set of standards and boundries that everybody must follow.

 

[marvdmartian]

At the same time, hasn't the supreme court allowed some religious symbols to remain in place, since they're considered to be of more historic than religious value? I swear I remember reading that somewhere.

The bottom line is that the law can be interpreted in many ways, and the absolute, no gray area attitude of the supposed 'seperation of church and state' has gotten a bit silly, imho. What's next? Telling people they can't have chapels on military bases or ships??

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

What religion does that cross represent?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
daniel49

Haven't you learned yet that " the communities will" is a lousy argument? All you need do is carry it to an extreme to show that. What if the community wanted to ignore child labor laws, or allow slavery, polygimy, etc..

State and federal constitutions define a minimum set of standards and boundries that everybody must follow.

And tyranny of the minority is as equally a lousy argument.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
daniel49

Haven't you learned yet that " the communities will" is a lousy argument? All you need do is carry it to an extreme to show that. What if the community wanted to ignore child labor laws, or allow slavery, polygimy, etc..

State and federal constitutions define a minimum set of standards and boundries that everybody must follow.

And tyranny of the minority is as equally a lousy argument.

What exactly does this mean?

That you think Christians can't practice their religion without government support?

Kind of a strange arguement......

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

there are actually other symbols in the community as well from other religions is what I understand listening to a San Diego talk show host. But an athesist or agnostic complaining about the christian symbol is what caused the problem.

The site was actually a war memorial and its right that the communities will was upheld over the one person it offended.

I can only hope someday we come back to the original meaning of seperation of church and state and get away from the PC nonsense it has become.

So it's PC nonsense to ignore the wishes of those who do not believe in mythical religions like yourself and others? Some of us don't want religious symbols forced upon us by the government and that's guaranteed by the separation of church and state, there's nothing "PC" about it. If you choose to believe in fairytale religions, keep the symbols in your homes and don't force them on the rest of us.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
daniel49

Haven't you learned yet that " the communities will" is a lousy argument? All you need do is carry it to an extreme to show that. What if the community wanted to ignore child labor laws, or allow slavery, polygimy, etc..

State and federal constitutions define a minimum set of standards and boundries that everybody must follow.

And tyranny of the minority is as equally a lousy argument.

What exactly does this mean?

That you think Christians can't practice their religion without government support?

Kind of a strange arguement......

It means a well organized vocal minority can force the majority to their will.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

there are actually other symbols in the community as well from other religions is what I understand listening to a San Diego talk show host. But an athesist or agnostic complaining about the christian symbol is what caused the problem.

The site was actually a war memorial and its right that the communities will was upheld over the one person it offended.

I can only hope someday we come back to the original meaning of seperation of church and state and get away from the PC nonsense it has become.

So it's PC nonsense to ignore the wishes of those who do not believe in mythical religions like yourself and others? Some of us don't want religious symbols forced upon us by the government and that's guaranteed by the separation of church and state, there's nothing "PC" about it. If you choose to believe in fairytale religions, keep the symbols in your homes and don't force them on the rest of us.

Who is forcing this down your throat? Dont like it? Dont look at it. I dont particularily like certain aspects of our society, does that give me the right to take them off public display?

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

there are actually other symbols in the community as well from other religions is what I understand listening to a San Diego talk show host. But an athesist or agnostic complaining about the christian symbol is what caused the problem.

The site was actually a war memorial and its right that the communities will was upheld over the one person it offended.

I can only hope someday we come back to the original meaning of seperation of church and state and get away from the PC nonsense it has become.

So it's PC nonsense to ignore the wishes of those who do not believe in mythical religions like yourself and others? Some of us don't want religious symbols forced upon us by the government and that's guaranteed by the separation of church and state, there's nothing "PC" about it. If you choose to believe in fairytale religions, keep the symbols in your homes and don't force them on the rest of us.

Who is forcing this down your throat? Dont like it? Dont look at it. I dont particularily like certain aspects of our society, does that give me the right to take them off public display?

What you like or not isn't the issue, it's about constitutional rights. By publicly displaying your fairytale religious symbols, you're pushing your ideals on the rest of us even if you think they're harmless. That's not very difficult to understand--keep your religious voodoo to yourselves at home or places of worship.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

there are actually other symbols in the community as well from other religions is what I understand listening to a San Diego talk show host. But an athesist or agnostic complaining about the christian symbol is what caused the problem.

The site was actually a war memorial and its right that the communities will was upheld over the one person it offended.

I can only hope someday we come back to the original meaning of seperation of church and state and get away from the PC nonsense it has become.

So it's PC nonsense to ignore the wishes of those who do not believe in mythical religions like yourself and others? Some of us don't want religious symbols forced upon us by the government and that's guaranteed by the separation of church and state, there's nothing "PC" about it. If you choose to believe in fairytale religions, keep the symbols in your homes and don't force them on the rest of us.

Who is forcing this down your throat? Dont like it? Dont look at it. I dont particularily like certain aspects of our society, does that give me the right to take them off public display?

What you like or not isn't the issue, it's about constitutional rights. By publicly displaying your fairytale religious symbols, you're pushing your ideals on the rest of us even if you think they're harmless. That's not very difficult to understand--keep your religious voodoo to yourselves at home or places of worship.

Is that what you read out of the consitution or is it the fairytale seperation of church and state the Supreme court decided existed?

The govt shall not establish a state religion. Putting a cross on a monument in no way establishes a state religion. If so kindly let us know which state religion is being established? Sounds to me like you want to trample freedom of expression.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

What religion does that cross represent?

Christianity, the Catholics started the cross/crucifix symbology.

As for the SC ruling about historical religious symbols, the only one I can think of was the 10 commandments that were a reference to a movie not the religion directly.

Scores of similar monuments were donated to cities and towns across the nation as part of a promotion for Cecil DeMille's epic movie "The Ten Commandments."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s03-usju.html

 

[extra]

I found this hilarious, props to the gov. on this one. The gov did a great job of wasting the complaining idiots' time!

The people in the area wanted it to stay up as it is a historical site. Stuff like this, and stuff like the "in god we trust" on our money...maybe it shouldn't be there, but who cares. There are so many things in this country that need accomplished that are actually important that I just can't find myself respecting the people who waste the time of the courts, etc, for trying to get this kind of stuff removed.

The "fanatical" athiests (who are exactly like the religious fundies) should just go build a monument to athiesm somewhere. Make it artful, make it beautiful. Get it put up somewhere. And watch as no one cares. There would be a few fundies who would complain maybe, but the rest of the christians would be like "whatever, if it looks cool it can stay".

There are buddhas and crap some places in the country as well. Why have the christians not sued to get them taken down? Why haven't most athiests tried to get them taken down? Maybe because most of both groups have lives and want to accomplish something meaninful and realize that THIS IS NOT GOVERNMENT ENDORSING RELIGION.

Imagine your life accomplishment including: "yeah, i sucessful got a historical monument that was a cross taken down!"
People would be like wow what a tool.

If you'd like to legitimately get government out of religion, you could do a few things besides trying to alter our history.

1. Get the drug war stopped.
2. Get "in god we trust" removed from NEW bill designs, don't waste everyone's time suing to try to get it taken off the old money--no one cares.
3. Look into abuses of the tax code by churches.
4. This has nothing to do with anything else--but get a scientoligist hunting season started! Then try to bag as many as you can!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

What religion does that cross represent?

Christianity, the Catholics started the cross/crucifix symbology.

As for the SC ruling about historical religious symbols, the only one I can think of was the 10 commandments that were a reference to a movie not the religion directly.

Scores of similar monuments were donated to cities and towns across the nation as part of a promotion for Cecil DeMille's epic movie "The Ten Commandments."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0628/p01s03-usju.html

I didnt realize christianity was a religion, i'd say more a basis for religions.
Christianity is a broad term and a cross in no way establishes a state religion.

 

[maluckey]

The Supreme Court would be establishing a religion of Atheism (by absence thereof) if they 100 percent outlawed all religious symbols. Is this the goal of the Atheist?

You know, I understand most religions from the standpoint of what they get out of it. The religious/anti religious groups that I am perplexed by are the Atheists. I just don't get the paradox of Atheism. In order to be against theism, you have to admit that it exists right? If you admit that there are religions and you do not believe, then so be it. Why the crusade to convince others that they are wrong, or interfere with their constitutionally guaranteed freedom to express their religion in any way that they see fit. By the interfering with the free practice of religion, to substitute your own beliefs (belief IS the basis for religion) you are committing the very same offense. You would be holding your belief system above that of others. Discrimination based on belief?.

If you truly don?t believe, and the religious people around you don?t ostracize or otherwise mistreat you, then what do you have to say about it?

 

[Todd33]

?How can they go against the president?? she said, shaking her head.

Wow, she makes a great argument for keeping the cross! The bottom line is Bush should not have got into a state issue, he just b!tch slapped state's rights, which used to be a conservative idea. It's a sad day when the president has to appeal to his base and step into a local battle, that's why we have a court system. Not surprising though, these people don't understand the Constitution and Bush has no respect for the other two branches of the government.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I didnt realize christianity was a religion, i'd say more a basis for religions.
Christianity is a broad term and a cross in no way establishes a state religion.

I know you don't believe the crap you just said, you would have to be a complete idiot.

The cross is a symbol that represents Christianity, which is a religion. It's not complicated, don't play dumb.

Christianity is a monotheistic[1] religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and on his life and teachings as presented in the New Testament.[2] Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ. With an estimated 2.1 billion adherents in 2001, Christianity is the world's largest religion.

I suppose Islam isn't a religion, just a basis for one...

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Some of us don't want religious symbols forced upon us by the government and that's guaranteed by the separation of church and state, there's nothing "PC" about it.

I'm not religious but I would like to ask you a question. Can you please show me where the Constitution mentions 'separation of church and state'. I don't recall reading it there.

Face it, it is "PC".

 

[Kwaipie]

Granted, this is an election year and the conservatives need all the help they can get but shouldn't curious George be concentrating on oh, let's see what's going on these days:

Immigration reform
The war on Terra
Iraq
Iran
North Korea

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Some of us don't want religious symbols forced upon us by the government and that's guaranteed by the separation of church and state, there's nothing "PC" about it.

I'm not religious but I would like to ask you a question. Can you please show me where the Constitution mentions 'separation of church and state'. I don't recall reading it there.

Face it, it is "PC".

Not this old tired argument again.. The Constitution starts the conversation, it has been ongoing in federal cases for 200 years. It's called precedence, where does the Constitution give you the right to a handgun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation...American_court_battles_over_separation

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm not religious but I would like to ask you a question. Can you please show me where the Constitution mentions 'separation of church and state'. I don't recall reading it there.

It specifically comes from a couple of the key founding fathers and what they said on this subject. Basically as a rule, the intent of those writting the document in the first place is key to how it should be enforced.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson uses the term "wall of separation between church and state" to show the Danbury Baptists that in both Connecticut and the entire United States, religious freedom is an inalienable right that government cannot take away...

James Madison, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Court rules cross to go cross in San Diego to be taken down as it is on public land violating church/state clauses - the administration flanks the effort by federalizing the land and placing it under DOD control.

I'm by no means against religion. However, the wording of the law is clear that there will not be a 'favored' religion of the state. How can this be legal? If they pass a law such as this is there judicial oversight? Where are the 'checks and balances' if the executive branch can do this?

there are actually other symbols in the community as well from other religions is what I understand listening to a San Diego talk show host. But an athesist or agnostic complaining about the christian symbol is what caused the problem.

The site was actually a war memorial and its right that the communities will was upheld over the one person it offended.

I can only hope someday we come back to the original meaning of seperation of church and state and get away from the PC nonsense it has become.

So it's PC nonsense to ignore the wishes of those who do not believe in mythical religions like yourself and others? Some of us don't want religious symbols forced upon us by the government and that's guaranteed by the separation of church and state, there's nothing "PC" about it. If you choose to believe in fairytale religions, keep the symbols in your homes and don't force them on the rest of us.

Who is forcing this down your throat? Dont like it? Dont look at it. I dont particularily like certain aspects of our society, does that give me the right to take them off public display?

This isn't just public display. It's public display on government property. This isn't about 'certain aspects of our society'. It's about certain aspects of our government. You want people to ignore aspects of the government they don't like? Good luck with that.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I didnt realize christianity was a religion, i'd say more a basis for religions.
Christianity is a broad term and a cross in no way establishes a state religion.

Most retarded commentary for the win!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I'm not religious but I would like to ask you a question. Can you please show me where the Constitution mentions 'separation of church and state'. I don't recall reading it there.

It specifically comes from a couple of the key founding fathers and what they said on this subject. Basically as a rule, the intent of those writting the document in the first place is key to how it should be enforced.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson uses the term "wall of separation between church and state" to show the Danbury Baptists that in both Connecticut and the entire United States, religious freedom is an inalienable right that government cannot take away...

James Madison, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

I think people dont care what he was saying when he wrote that. He was reassuring the idea they would not be subjected to a state mandated religion and would still continue to enjoy their freedom of religion and expression.

Not that the public square was off limits to religious expressions like some want to believe.

When a law is passed mandating a state religion all hell will break loose. Putting a cross or 10 commandments up in the public square hardly establishes anything. It is the public square, a place for expressions, including religious.

I am waiting for the day when they try to change the name of San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco because they represent christianity. It is coming, you can be assured of it.

The people on the side of banning these expressions are no better than the fundamentalists who try to push their religion on you. Both feel their opinions trump the opinions of the majority and thus should be forced on the majority.