nice attempt at obscuring the issue, the point is that religion shouldnt be a subject of debate on public land(government), keep your symbolism in your churches and in your neighborhoods and at home, but not on goverment property, can you not just keep your religious crap to yourself in those places? what is the problem here? do you want a bunch of atheists making up screwy symbols and putting them all over government property? what about any other religion? want some islamic symbols up in the government places?
nice attempt at obscuring the issue, the point is that religion shouldnt be a subject of debate on public land(government), keep your symbolism in your churches and in your neighborhoods and at home, but not on goverment property, can you not just keep your religious crap to yourself in those places? what is the problem here? do you want a bunch of atheists making up screwy symbols and putting them all over government property? what about any other religion? want some islamic symbols up in the government places?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
My reply would be the same. I can't help it that people who claim to be atheists get in a huff because others happen to believe differently than they do, and get offended everytime they see some symbol of that diversity of thought and belief. Why, you'd swear those self-labeled atheists were religionists themselves their need to convert others to their own belief system is so strong!
BTW, you never replied to my post above. I'll take that as a concession to my points on your part.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 31
- 91
And that letter has since been perverted into what is today called 'Separation of Church and State'. Things have a way of being twisted as time goes on. But, then again, I guess the ability to change is one great thing about our country even if finding a letter from one founding father and using it as a basis for an argument is the foundation of that change.
What of the other founding fathers? You say the phrase comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson and mention other "key" founding fathers. Who are the founding fathers that are not "key"? How do you take a letter filled with ambiguity and use it to help define ambiguity?
I have no doubt that several of the founders were not Christians. I'm sure that some of them had no God. However, I find it hard to believe that these men, these revolutionaries, would get so bent out of shape over some of the issues that this "separation of church and state" is used to strike down.
Quite simple. The cross is on government land giving the appearance that the government lends its support to Christianity and only to Christianity. There are no other religious symbols present.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 31
- 91
But that does not establish a religion. If Christians began putting up crosses in combination with some other religious ornament would it then be okay in your view? Or would the government then be establishing two religions?
If a Cross constitutes a violation of Church and State, which is not in the constitution, then how can all those crosses be in the national cemetary in Washington, DC?
If its just a decoration, why do people care in the first place? The problem is the community would NOT allow the second one public land, and they wouldn't give equal accomidations for all religions.
Favoratism towards Christianity is effectively an endorsement of religion.
The way to stop all this kind of crap is just to insist that a Muslim cresent, Jewish star, Hindu buhda, Flying Spaghetti Monster likeness, whatever - all be placed right next to the cross. See how fast it takes them to come up for a reason not to allow that to happen. Bunch of lying, idiot hypocrites is what the American Christian Taliban are. They'll change their tune about the stupid cross the moment some judge says the cresent has to be allowed to go up as well.
F the stupid bastards. They are ruining the country.
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
Hindus do not have the Buddha. The Buddhists have the Buddha.
I like your idea but it would fail becuase do yourealize how many different religions will demand a fair stake in the display. You probably won't have enough space once all of them show up with their symbols.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 31
- 91
Sure I do. The clause is there to make sure Congress makes no laws having to do with religion. Putting a cross up in a yard, whether it be public or private, is not a law made by Congress. To me, the clause simply says that the people will determine things for themselves and that the government will stay out of it when it comes to religion. But then again I am actually reading the clause and trying to come up with my own conclusion.
This is actually an extremely crappy example. Basically all sorts of literature and holy books from all religions are in the Library of Congress, which simply serves as a rather neutural depository of various types on information. The Guttenberg Bible is actually not particularly important due to its contents, (obviously there were bibles created before then and its not like there are not plenty of other copies of the bible out there) it is important because it was the first printed book actually produced using a printing press. Basically its important as a example of an important technological development in the history of information storage.
Putting up a symbol of a particular religion on government property implies government sponsorship, approval and even financial favoritism for that particular religion at the expense of every other religion not equally represented.
Go do some research on the establishment clause as you clearly don't understand how it's applied.
Kind of have to agree with Genx87 on this one. I'm not a fan of the cross either, but it's not pushing ideals. I don't see a difference between being offended by a sex shop or being offended by a cross. Perhaps you could explain for me though, cause I really don't see it.
Does the cross represent something? Sure, but so does a McDonald's sign. The only difference is that you personally don't mind the McDonald's sign, but you don't like the cross. I see no violation of rights there, only a difference of opinion.
But like I said, please enlighten me if I'm missing something there.
Does McDonalds have a 43 foot cross on top of a govt owned 800 foot tall mountain,
visible from I-5? I didn't think so.
Just because San Diego is filled with right-wing christians does not make this cross legal or right.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me...987.story?coll=la-headlines-california
But San Diego attorney James McElroy, who has represented an atheist Vietnam veteran in the long fight to have the cross removed, said the shift in ownership will not matter. McElroy said several decisions in other cases involving crosses on federal land support his position.
"The cross on Mt. Soledad shows a preference for Christian veterans over non-Christian veterans who have fought and died for their country, and that's wrong," McElroy said.Anticipating that Bush would sign the bill, McElroy filed a request with federal court in San Diego last week to declare that switching ownership does not change a previous ruling that the presence of the cross on public land is unconstitutional under the state Constitution.
The cross, erected in 1954 as a memorial to military personnel killed in Korea and the two world wars, has long enjoyed enormous popular support in this military community. Voters have twice endorsed measures to keep the cross, visible from Interstate 5, atop what is one of the most prominent hilltops in San Diego.
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Carlsbad) said he fears that forcing the removal of the cross could lead to court-ordered removals of crosses at other locations, including veterans cemeteries. "What's next?" Bilbray said. "Remove the crosses at Arlington or Normandy?"
McElroy said the "Arlington argument" misses the point that courts have made: The size and location of a cross are significant in deciding whether it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. At Arlington, he noted, some graves are marked by stars of David.
"At Mt. Soledad, the cross is all that people see from a distance," he said, noting that the war memorial plaques at the base of the cross can't be seen from Interstate 5.
Yeah I guess 45/45 Democrats in the Senate are boot-licking right-wing fascist christian apologists. Or maybe they're slightly normal human beings.
The rabid atheists are more hateful, more spiteful, and spew more venom than the so called "religious right".
Someone mentioned McDonald's not having their arches up there - I wonder just how much they would pay for the right to place them there? $1 Million/year? More? Whatever that dollar figure is - that's a free gift from the government to a specific religion at the taxpayer's expense. There's no way you can argue that's justified or fair considering no other religion receives the same benefits. Not to mention the constitutional issues brought about by the establishment clause that I've already pointed out.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter